Interim evaluation of Shift2Rail joint undertaking (2014-2016) : interim evaluation report.
Date: 2017-10-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, common transport policy, innovation, public-private partnership, rail network, rail transport, railway industry, research programme, research project, transport network, transport policy, transport regulations

Interim Evaluation of 
Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking  

(2014-2016) 

Interim Evaluation Report 

Written by: Eric Fontanel, Roderick Smith, Heather Allen, Michael Dooms 
June 2017  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
Directorate C — Land  
Unit C4 — Rail Safety and Interoperability 

Contact: Mihaela Williams, Teresa Pereira Coutinho 

E-mail:  MOVE-C4-SHIFT2RAIL@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission  

B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Interim Evaluation of 
Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking  

(2014-2016) 

Directorate-General for for Mobility and Transport  
Single European Railway Area – Safe, competitive and low-emission railways   

2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

Europe  Direct 
to your questions about the European Union. 

is  a  service 

to  help  you 

find  answers  

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

ISBN 978-92-79-69617-6 
doi: 10.2832/129413 

© European Union, 2017 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 
1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 6 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 8 

2.1 Purpose of the evaluation ..................................................................................... 8 

2.2 Scope of the evaluation ........................................................................................ 8 

3.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ............................................................................. 9 

3.1 Overview of relevant European Transport Policy ....................................................... 9 

3.1.1 A Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area ............................................. 9 

3.1.2 4th Railway Package ................................................................................... 10 

3.1.3  Overview of Horizon 2020 ........................................................................... 11 

3.1.5 Overview of policy implications and Shift2Rail ................................................ 13 

3.2 Overview of the structure of railway systems ......................................................... 13 

3.2.1 Background on Shift2Rail ............................................................................. 15 

3.3. The initiative and its objectives ............................................................................ 17 

3.3.1 Origin of the Joint Undertaking ..................................................................... 17 

3.3.2  Description of the creation of the Joint Undertaking ....................................... 18 

3.3.3  S2R governance structure........................................................................... 20 

3.3.4  Technical structure of the program .............................................................. 21 

3.3.5 Relevance of the working programme ........................................................... 22 

3.3.5.1  Detailed technical content (from the the Masterplan)................................... 22 

3.3.5.2 Demonstration and implementation............................................................ 25 

4.  EVALUATION QUESTIONS ......................................................................................... 25 

5.  METHODOLOGY AND PROCESSES FOLLOWED ............................................................. 25 

5.1 The approach ..................................................................................................... 25 

5.2 Limitations – robustness of findings ...................................................................... 26 

6. 

IMPLEMENTATION: STATE OF PLAY OF THE S2R JOINT UNDERTAKING .......................... 26 

6.1 JU membership and selection of associate members ................................................ 26 

6.2 Participation patterns in JU membership ................................................................ 29 

2 

 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

6.2.1 Participation per country ............................................................................. 29 

6.2.2 Participation by sector ................................................................................. 31 

6.2.3 Trends and specificities in participation ......................................................... 32 

6.3 Overview of calls for proposals launched during the period 2014-2016 ...................... 34 

6.3.1 Analysis of the results of the first calls .......................................................... 34 

6.3.2  Allocation of funds per IP ............................................................................ 36 

6.4. Participation per topic and expected results ........................................................... 37 

6.5 Competition for funding, Distribution of funds and Grant sizes .................................. 38 

7.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .............................................................. 39 

7.1. S2R mission and governance ............................................................................... 39 

7.1.1 Evaluation of the current structure and management ...................................... 39 

7.1.2 Involvement of all actors in the value chain ................................................... 41 

7.1.3  Involvement of other stakeholders ............................................................... 43 

7.1.4  Whole System approach ............................................................................. 44 

7.1.5  Coordination of stakeholders along  the  value chain and development of a vision 
on the medium and long term. ............................................................................. 46 

7.1 6 Contractual arrangements between partners .................................................. 47 

7.1.7 Transparency and communication to all interested parties ............................... 47 

7.2. Operational effectiveness .................................................................................... 48 

7.2.1    Expected  results  and  contribution  of  the  lighthouse  projects  to  the  innovation 
programs of S2R ................................................................................................. 49 

7.2.2 Effectiveness of the calls ............................................................................. 51 

7.2.3. Direct achievements .................................................................................. 52 

7.2.3  Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) .............................................................. 54 

7.3 Operational efficiency of the S2R Joint Undertaking ................................................. 56 

7.4.  EU Added Value ................................................................................................ 58 

7.4 Coherence ......................................................................................................... 60 

7.4.1 Internal coherence ...................................................................................... 60 

7.4.2 External coherence ..................................................................................... 61 

8.  CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 65 

 
 
8.1 Relevance of the initiative and objectives ............................................................... 65 

8.2 Implementation state of play of the S2R JU ............................................................ 66 

8.3 Effectiveness of implementation and main achievements ......................................... 66 

8.4. Operational efficiency of the S2R JU ..................................................................... 67 

8.5. EU added value ................................................................................................. 67 

8.6. Coherence ........................................................................................................ 68 

9.  RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 68 

9.1 Transfer of knowledge between transport JUs ......................................................... 69 

9.2 Improving the balance of the eco-system............................................................... 69 

9.3 Addressing the societal aspects ............................................................................ 70 

9.4 Visioning and outward looking .............................................................................. 70 

9.5 Improving innovation and efficiency ...................................................................... 70 

9.6 Review of performance metrics ............................................................................. 71 

10.FURTHER REMARKS ................................................................................................... 71 

10.1 Future strategy in the context of a world view of rail ............................................. 72 

10.2  Longer-term development of rail and S2R ........................................................... 74 

11. ANNEXES ................................................................................................................ 76 

Appendix 1 List of Interviews and meetings ................................................................. 76 

Appendix  2  Distinguishing  features  of  research  and  development:  reliance  to  railway 
research .................................................................................................................. 78 

Annex 3. Profiles of the respondents to the internet survey organised by the Expert Group 82 

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 82 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

ABSTRACT 

An  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  EU  Shift2Rail  Joint  Initiative  (S2R  JU)  has  been  conducted  by  an 
Expert  Group.  It  was  found  to  be  too  early  in  the  life  of  the  JU  to  assess  the  quality  and 
effectiveness  of  any  research  outputs,  but  it  was  noted that the  JU  has  formulated  a  research 
programme,  which  will  strongly  support  the  Transport  Policy  of  the  EU  as  expressed  in  the 
White  Paper  of  2011.  Both  the  management  and  membership  of  the  JU  are  highly  competent 
and enthusiastic and it is  confidently  anticipated that  the research outputs will also be of high 
quality.  The  Expert  Group  has  made  several  suggestions  for  improving,  inter  alia,  the  railway 
system  wide  coverage  of  the  JU,  which  currently  is  dominated  by  the  several  manufacturers 
who  were  the  founding  members,  to  augment  the  scientist  advice  given  to  the  JU  by  the 
inclusion of societal considerations and to clarify the role of external groups on the formation of 
strategic  railway  research.  The  Expert  Group  strongly  supports  the  birth,  objectives  and  initial 
workings of the S2R JU. 

 
 
 
 
1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report is an interim evaluation of the Shift2Rail (S2R) Joint initiative (JU) of the European 
Union (EU). The S2R JU achieved  autonomy in  May 2016, and it is therefore too early for any 
research  results  to  be  included  in  this  evaluation,  as  it  has  happened  too  soon  to  examine 
research outputs.  

The report reviews the activities leading to autonomy, from 2010 up-to and including the call for 
proposals in late 2015 and their evaluation and selection.  

The  analysis  complies  with  the  requirements  of the  revised  evaluation  guidelines  of  the  Better 
Regulation  Package  and  takes  into  account  the  five  main  evaluation  criteria  -  relevance, 
efficiency,  effectiveness,  coherence  and  EU  added  value.  To  make  our  evaluation,  we 
undertook extensive reading of EU and S2R documentation, conducted surveys of stakeholders 
opinion,  conducted  interviews  with  members  of  the  JU  management  team,  beneficiaries  and 
stakeholders,  and  relied  on  our  railway  and  research  expertise  to  make  judgements  of  the 
evidence available. 

The  railway  transportation  system  has  some  particular  features,  both  of  technology  and 
organisation,  which  differentiates  it  from  other  forms  of  transport.  However,  there  are  some 
similarities, and these have been discussed in a comparison with the other transport related JUs 
which  were  being  evaluated  simultaneously  with  our  own  activities,  namely  the  SESAR  and 
Clean Sky JUs1. 

It  is  noted  that  the  genesis  of  the  JU  came  from  an  initiative  of  the  major  European  rail 
manufacturers  in  discussions  with  the  Association  of  European  Railway  Manufacturers,  UNIFE. 
As a result, the Founding Members of the JU were six members of the manufacturing industry, 
together  with  two  infrastructure  managers.  Associate  Members  were  selected  after  an  open 
competition and confirmed in December 2015. It is inevitable that given the manufacturing core 
of the founding members of the JU, a system-wide view of the railway is incomplete. We draw 
attention  to  the  relative  lack  of  urban  rail,  and  the  omission  of  some  major  operators.  The 
current  concentration  on  technology  in  the  research  priorities  and  agenda  is  acceptable  within 
the  current  working  programme  but  societal  as  well  as  operational  issues  should  be  better 
covered in the future. 

During  the  formation  of  S2R,  a  decision  was  made  to  place  the  management  of  all  EU  funded 
railway research into the JU.  We  have  noted  that this calls into question the future role of the 
European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC). We argue that ERRAC could play a vital role 
in  developing  a  long-term  strategic  view  of  railway  research  if  it  were  to  be  reformed  with  a 
strong membership, completely independent of S2R and inclusive of all railway transport market 
stakeholders. 

The technical structure of the JU programme, as described in the Master Plan2, is based around 
five  Innovation  Programmes  (IP1-5),  namely  Cost-efficient  reliable  trains,  Advanced  traffic 
management,  Sustainable  and  Reliable  Infrastructure,  IT  Solutions  and  Technologies  for  Rail 
Freight.  Across  all  five  IPs  are  overlaid  five  cross  cutting  themes  and  activities  (CCAs),  which 

1  Single European Sky ATM Research JU, High Performing Aviation for Europe, CleanSky2 

2  Shift2Rail Strategic Master Plan, Version 1.0 , March 2015 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

are long-term needs, smart materials, system integration, energy and sustainability and human 
capital.  

It  is  recognised  that  the  IPs  have  been  structured  round  the  European  legislation  for  railways 
and shaped by the interests of the founding members, six representatives of the manufacturing 
industry,  and  two  infrastructure  managers.  Whilst  we  support  the  proposed  programme  of 
activities,  we  have  some  concern  that  new  and  emerging  trends  will  influence  the  railways  in 
the  future.  Ways  need  to  be  found  to  consider  these  trends  as  the  research  programmes  are 
developed and certainly need to be taken into account as a successor JU emerges. Maximising 
the impacts of transport research and innovation requires supporting solutions that are closer to 
the market and bridging the gap to large-scale deployment of innovation. We anticipate that the 
JU will strengthen its deployment agenda as research proceeds. 

When we analysed the state of play, we saw that the 8 Founding Members have been joined by 
19 Associate Members. There were 43 applicants from which the Associates were selected. The 
process  appeared to  be  conducted  in  a  fair  and  transparent  manner  resulting  in  a  satisfactory 
but  not  perfect  outcome.  Representation  for  the  Eastern  European  countries  remains  very 
limited and there is incomplete coverage of the whole railway sector: operators and the urban 
sector are not prominent. More generally, the process that was followed was the Horizon 2020 
(H2020)  one  for  selection  of  research  projects  and  probably  did  not  sufficiently  focus  on  the 
optimum completion of expertise within the JU membership. It is inevitable that some applicants 
for  Associate  membership  were  disappointed.  Based  on  the  evidence  provided  and  in  the 
experts opinion this was due to process rather than content of their application. It is suggested 
that a solution is found in the short term, which may include considering launching a second call 
at an appropriate moment or making some other adjustments to all the gaps in expertise to be 
filled  

Smart,  green  and  integrated  transport  becomes  increasingly  relevant  for  tackling  new  and 
international  challenges  such  as  digitalisation,  security  and  the  fight  against  climate  change. 
Compared  to  previous  Framework  Programmes,  H2020  is  more  focused  on  innovation  and 
demonstration.  This approach is widely supported  by stakeholders in the transport arena, who 
appreciate  support  being  provided  towards  achieving  concrete  results,  deployment  and  thus 
towards increasing the impact on solving societal challenges, in addition to promoting excellence 
in science. 

Our  review  concludes  that  the  S2R  JU  has  already  achieved  positive  effects  by  bringing  many 
players  to  work  together  towards  these  common  goals,  helping  to  overcome  fragmentation  in 
the  market  and  create  continuity  of  research  goals.  Much  of  the  research  being  undertaken 
would not have happened if the JU had not existed, and there is wide agreement of the value of 
JU  when  it  comes  to  large-scale  demonstration  projects.  Therefore  we  strongly  support  its 
creation, and the programme of research it has set out. 

Nevertheless,  we  have  suggested  in  our  recommendations  some  ways  in  which  we  think  the 
current  JU  could  be  improved  and  how  a  continuation  of  it  could  be  further  developed.  In 
particular in order to make a real impact on the railway of the future, a better understanding of 
societal needs, and a more outward looking view of emerging technologies need to be adopted 
and the membership (or active participation in S2R) needs to be broadened.  

 
 
 
 
2. 

INTRODUCTION 

2.1 Purpose of the evaluation 

This  report  on  the  Shift2Rail  Joint  Undertaking  has  been  produced  by  the  Expert  Group 
appointed by the Commission. Its purpose is to assess the progress and mid-term achievements 
of  the  newly  established  Joint  Undertaking  Shift2Rail  (S2R)  during  the  period  2014-16.  The 
analysis  complies  with  the  requirements  of  the  revised  evaluation  guidelines  of  the  Better 
Regulation  Package  and  takes  into  account  the  five  main  evaluation  criteria  -  relevance, 
efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and  EU added value. As stipulated in Article 32(3) of 
the  Council  Regulation  1291/2013,  the  interim  evaluation  of  S2R  JU  focuses  on  the  following 
aspects: 

  Openness: The extent to which the JUs enable world-class research that helps Europe 
achieve a leadership  position  globally, and how  they engage with a  wider constituency 
to open the research to the broader society. 

  Transparency: The extent to  which the  JUs keep  an  open non-discriminatory  attitude 
towards  a  wide  community  of  stakeholders  and  provide  them  with  easy  and  effective 
access to information. 

  Effectiveness:  The  progress  towards  achieving  the  objectives  set,  including  how  all 
parties  in  the  public-private  partnerships  live  up  to  their  financial  and  managerial 
responsibilities. 

  Efficiency  (a  requirement  set  in  Article  25(3)  of  the  Council  Regulation  1291/2013): 
will  consider  the  relationship  between  the  resources  used  by  an  intervention  and  the 
changes generated by the intervention. 

These  evaluation  aspects  have  been  integrated  in  the  overall  evaluation  framework  and  the 
evaluation questions provided by the European Commission. The Expert Group has used these 
evaluation aspects to guide their analysis, and to draw their conclusions and recommendations.  

The evaluation  includes  an analysis of the contribution  of the  Shift2Rail JU to the EU’s general 
transport policy objectives and to the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 and, in 
particular, aspects of  the Smart,  Green and Integrated Transport Challenge under the Societal 
Challenges pillar (Council Decision 2013/743/EU) that established the programme to implement 
Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).  

An interim evaluation of the S2R JU is a key requirement both in the S2R basic act and in the 
regulatory  framework  of  Horizon  2020.  Specifically,  Article  11  of  the  S2R  Regulation  requires 
the  Commission  to  carry  out  an  interim  evaluation  of  the  S2R  Joint  Undertaking  with  the 
assistance of independent experts. The evaluation is to be completed by 30 June 2017 and the 
Commission  will  prepare  a  report  on  the  evaluation  conclusions,  along  with  the  Commission 
observations,  that  will  be  sent  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  by  31  December 
2017. 

2.2 Scope of the evaluation 

The  objective  of  this  interim  evaluation  is  to  assess  progress  and  mid-term  achievements  of 
Shift2Rail  during  the  period  2014-2016.  However,  this  is  particularly  challenging,  as  there  are 
no  completed  projects.  Therefore  on  account  of  this,  the  evaluation  also  considered  the 
Shift2Rail ‘lighthouse projects’. These are four rail projects with grants signed under the general 
Horizon  2020  Transport  Work  Programme  (within  the  Challenge  “Smart,  green  and  integrated 
transport” call “Mobility for Growth”, topic 2. Rail).  

8 

 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

These four projects have a total value of €52M and can be considered to be precursor projects 
to Shift2Rail. However, even though these projects were expected to be transferred to the JU, a 
decision  was  taken  to  keep  them  under  the  management  of  DG  MOVE  and  DG  RTD.  As  such, 
they are not under the direct management of the S2R JU but are still part of the S2R initiative. 
They were considered to be of relevance for the evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency with 
regard to topic definition and cross project integration. 

In  addition,  the  contribution  of  the  JUs  as  an  instrument  towards  achieving  the  EU’s  general 
transport  policy  objectives  have  been  taken  into  account,  including  considering  the  findings  of 
the  interim  evaluations  of  all  the  Joint  Undertakings  funded  under  this  Challenge,  namely  the 
S2R  JU,  the  SESAR  JU  and  the  Clean  Sky  JU,  hereinafter  collectively  referred  to  as  the 
‘Transport Joint Undertakings’ (TJU), looking at learning that could be transferred and how they 
can  be  improved.  It  is  foreseen  that  the  results  of  this  interim  evaluation  will  be  used  to 
improve the implementation of the JUs in general and of the S2R JU in particular under Horizon 
2020, to contribute to the formulation of the future S2R JU Annual Work Plans and to serve as a 
basis  for  the  ex-ante  impact  assessment  of  possible  next  generation  JUs  and  future  work 
programmes. 

The main sources of evidence of this assessment have been: 

• 
• 

• 

Interviews carried out over the period January to June 2017.  
Experts relied on: 

- 
Surveys 
-  Consultations 

Analysis  of  Horizon  2020  Regulation,  Joint  Undertaking  Regulations,  and  of  relevant 
strategy and policy documents.  

3.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

3.1 Overview of relevant European Transport Policy 

There  are  a  number  of  European  policy  areas  that  involve  transport  and  rail.  The  policy  and 
regulatory framework helped  to provide the context and set out the relevance for the creation 
and setting up of the S2R Joint Undertaking. The following section covers the main policy areas 
relevant to S2R. 

3.1.1 A Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area  

In  2011  the  European  Commission  published  their  White  Paper  “A  Roadmap  to  a  Single 
European  Transport  Area  –  Towards  a  competitive  and  resource  efficient  transport  system” 
which  stresses  the  need  to  achieve  a  more  competitive  and  resource  efficient,  European 
transport system and address major societal challenges relating to rising traffic demand such as 
congestion, energy supply and climate change. The Roadmap sets out to remove major barriers 
and bottlenecks in many key areas across the fields of transport infrastructure and investment, 
innovation  and  the  internal  market.  The  Single  European  Transport  Area  includes  a  Single 
European Railway Area (SERA) and a fully integrated transport network that links the different 
modes and allows for a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers and freight.  

The Transport White Paper sets out a number of key goals and initiatives to build a competitive 
transport  system  that  responds  to  European  citizens’  and  businesses’  needs  for  increased 
mobility and contributes to more growth and jobs. It at the same time also sets out the context 
to  reduce  Europe’s  dependence  on  imported  oil  and  cut  carbon  emissions  from  transport  by 
60%  by  2050.  To  meet  these  goals  appropriate  infrastructures,  technologies  and  services  will 
need to be developed and targets have been set for this. For example, the length of the existing 
high-speed rail network should be tripled by 2030 and all Member States should have a dense 
railway network, and the European high-speed rail network should be completed by 2050. The 

 
 
 
 
EU-wide multi-modal TEN-T ‘core network’ should be fully functional by 2030, and by 2050 this 
should be enhanced in quality and capacity and have better information services. By the same 
time (2050), all core network airports should be connected to the rail network, preferably high-
speed and all core seaports should also be sufficiently connected to the rail freight and, where 
possible, the inland waterway system. In addition the efficiency of transport and infrastructure 
should  be  increased  with  information  systems  and  market-based  incentives  including  the 
deployment of transport management systems (such as ERTMS3 for rail) and the deployment of 
the European Global Navigation Satellite System (Galileo).  

There  are  a  number  of  user-focussed  goals  as  well  and  by  2020,  a  framework  for  a  European 
multi-modal  transport  information,  management  and  payment  system  should  be  in  place  and 
moves  towards  full  application  of  “user  pays”  and  “polluter  pays”  principles  to  eliminate 
distortions,  including  harmful  subsidies,  generate  revenues  and  ensure  financing  for  future 
transport investments are expected to be addressed. It is expected that this will include greater 
private sector engagement.  

The ambition of the EU is to retain and maintain its world leader position in safety and security 
of  transport  in  all  modes of  transport.  By  2050,  the  EU  goal  is  to  be  close  to  zero  fatalities  in 
road transport, and in line with this goal, road casualties should be halved by 2020. 

3.1.2 4th Railway Package  

In  January  2013,  the  Commission  adopted  its  proposal  for  the  fourth  railway  package  to 
complete  a  single  European  railway  area.  The  Fourth  Railway  Package,  is  designed  to 
strengthening the role of rail in the transport system, especially given its inherent advantages of 
environmental  performance,  land  use,  energy  consumption  and  safety.  A  key  initiative  in 
achieving this goal is the creation of a Single European Railway Area (SERA)  4, and to  remove 
the remaining administrative, technical and regulatory obstacles holding back the opening of the 
European market and achieving interoperability (with the associated reduction of passenger and 
freight  operating  costs).  The  SERA  focuses  on  increased  interoperability  within  the  European 
railway system and a better use of inter-modality between road, rail and water-borne transport.  

The Fourth Railway Package is comprised of two 'pillars', which have been negotiated largely in 
parallel.  The  'technical  pillar',  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  April 
2016, includes: 

  Regulation  (EU)  2016/796  on  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Railways  and  repealing 

Regulation (EC) n° 881/2004 

  Directive  (EU)  2016/797  on  the  interoperability  of  the  rail  system  within  the European 

Union (Recast of Directive 2008/57/EC) 

  Directive (EU) 2016/798 on railway safety (Recast of Directive 2004/49/EC) 

The 'market pillar', adopted in December 2016, includes: 

  Regulation (EU) 2016/2338 amending Regulation (EU) 1370/2007, which deals with the 
award of public service contracts for domestic passenger transport services by rail ('PSO 
Regulation') 

3 In accordance with the European Deployment plan for ERTMS: cf. Commission Decision C(2009)561.  

4  Directive  2012/34/EU,  establishing  a  Single  European  Railway  Area,  merged  previous  Directives  (the  first  Railway 
Package) and their  successive amendments  into one act.  It also adds  important substantive changes to tackle the lack of 
competition, poor regulation and low investment observed in the rail market in the last decade. It applies to the rail freight 
and international passenger market segments. This directive was amended by Directive 2016/2370/EU as part of the Fourth 
Railway  Package.  In  more  technical  terms  the  acronym  SERA  is  also  often  used  to  designate  the  single  European  railway 
system, as regulated by the interoperability and safety directives and on which TSI and other regulations under these two 
directives apply. 

10 

 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

  Directive 2016/2370/EU amending Directive 2012/34/EU, which deals with the opening 
of  the  market  of  domestic  passenger  transport  services  by  rail  and  the  governance  of 
the railway infrastructure ('Governance Directive') 

  Regulation (EU) 2016/2337 repealing Regulation (EEC) 1192/69 on the normalisation of 

the accounts of railway undertakings 

The new text strengthened the criteria for the financial and managerial independence of the rail 
infrastructure  managers;  putting  the  infrastructure  manager  at  the  centre  of  each  Member 
State’s railway system, at a similar level as all infrastructure users.  

The  revision  adapted  the  wording  of  all  articles  pertinent  to  market  opening,  by  stating  that 
domestic rail passenger markets will have  to be opened to competition, and that, at the same 
time, the entrance of new operators will not be to the detriment of all the operators that serve 
regional  markets  via  public  service  contracts.  The  revision  of  Regulation  (EC)  1370/2007 
provided a text on the principles of market opening.  

The  governance  and  market opening  pillar  strengthens,  in  particular,  the  role  of  infrastructure 
managers and the opening of domestic passenger markets. The objective of the market pillar is 
to  deliver  more  choice  and  better  quality  of  rail  services  for  European  citizens.  The  role 
therefore  of  infrastructure  managers  in  S2R  is  therefore  critical  and  although  some  aspects  of 
the market pillar are being addressed in the JU, a broadening of active participation is needed to 
fully respond to this objective.  

The  technical  pillar,  among  other  things,  enhances  the  role  of  the  European  Union  Railway 
Agency  (ERA),  to  become  the  body  responsible  for  issuing  safety  certificates  for  railway 
undertakings and vehicle authorisations in all Member States. The technical pillar is designed to 
boost  the  competitiveness  of  the  railway  sector  by  significantly  reducing  costs  and 
administrative burden for railway undertakings wishing to operate across Europe. This is in-line 
with  the  creation  of  S2R  as  a  support  for  maintaining  the  competiveness  of  the  European 
railway sector and it work programme is based on the technical aspects of this pillar. 

In terms of competiveness, the European rail supply industry is increasingly being challenged by 
overseas  suppliers,  mainly  from  Asia,  (see  Section  10.1  &  Appendix  2)  who  are  investing 
massively  in  research  and  innovation,  as  well  as  in  human  capital.  A  growing  number  of  non-
European  operators  are  also  looking  to  enter  the  European  markets  as  they  become  open  to 
them so the long-term competitive success of European rail, vis-à-vis both other land-transport 
modes  as  well  as  against  foreign  competition  depends  largely  on  continuous  product,  service 
and process innovation, and profitable business models. S2R has been set up to help maintain 
and increase the competiveness of the sector and its industrial players.    

3.1.3 Overview of Horizon 2020 

The  European  Commission  is  committed  to  its  “Europe  2020”  strategy  based  on  smart, 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth.  The  strategy  looks  to  find  ways  of  decoupling  economic 
growth from resource and energy use and encourages a shift to a resource-efficient, low carbon, 
growth  economy,  avoiding  transport  pollution  and  congestion.  This  calls  for  a  massive 
technological improvement and a radical systematic change. Rail is seen as being an important 
part of the solution.  

Horizon  2020  is  the  European  Union’s  Research  and  Innovation  Framework  Program  for  the  period 
2014-2020.  It  aims  to  contribute  to  building  a  society  and  an  economy  based  on  knowledge  and 
innovation across the Union by leveraging additional research, development and innovation funding 
and by contributing to attaining research and development targets, including the target of 3% of GDP 
for research and development across the Union by 2020. Horizon 2020 supports the implementation 
of  the  Europe  2020  strategy  and  other  Union  policies,  and  is  expected  to  contribute  to  the 

 
 
 
Commission’s  top  priorities  for  strengthening  Europe’s  competitiveness  and  stimulating  investment 
for the purpose of job creation.3.1.4.Priorities and Specific Objectives in Horizon 2020. 

In the light of this ambitious agenda, and to assist global leadership for the European transport 
industry, the EU earmarked EUR 6.3 billion of its EUR 77 billion new Framework Programme for 
Research  and  Innovation  covering  the  period  2014-2020  –  Horizon  2020    –  towards  transport 
research and innovation, under the heading "Smart, green and integrated transport". This is an 
increase  of  50%  compared  with  the  previous  funding  period.  In  this  context,  the  EU  also 
decided to step up a number of partnerships with the transport industry, in order to overcome 
fragmentation,  to  better  target  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  and  to  help  to  accelerate  the 
market uptake of innovative solutions by ensuring industry buy-in. 

The first priority of Horizon 2020 is Excellent in Science, which aims to reinforce and extend the 
excellence of the Union's science base and to consolidate the European Research Area in order 
to  make  the  Union's  research  and  innovation  system  more  competitive  on  a  global  scale.  The 
second  priority  is  Industrial  Leadership,  which  aims  to  speed  up  the  development  of  the 
technologies and innovations that will underpin tomorrow's new technology and help innovative 
European  SMEs  to  grow  into  world-leading  companies.  The  third  priority  Societal  Challenges 
responds directly to the policy priorities and societal challenges that are identified in the Europe 
2020  strategy  and  which  aim  to  stimulate  a  critical  mass  of  research  and  innovation  efforts 
needed to achieve the Union's policy goals. 

Within  Horizon  2020,  the  specific  objective  of  the  Transport  Challenge  ‘Smart,  Green  and 
Integrated Transport’ is to boost the  competitiveness of the European  transport industries and 
“to achieve a European transport system that is resource efficient, climate and environmentally 
friendly, safe and seamless for the benefit of all citizens, the economy and society”. 

The Specific Programme is structured in four broad lines of activities aiming at: 

a)  Resource  efficient  transport that respects the  environment. The aim  is to minimise 
transport systems’ impact on  climate  and  the  environment (including noise  and air 
pollution)  by  improving  their  efficiency  in  the  use  of  natural  resources  and  by 
reducing their dependence on fossil fuels. 

b)  Better  mobility,  less  congestion,  more  safety  and  security.  The  aim  is  to  reconcile 
the  growing  mobility  needs  with  improved  transport  fluidity,  through  innovative 
solutions  for  seamless,  inclusive,  affordable,  safe,  secure  and  robust  transport 
systems. 

c)  Global  leadership  for  the  European  transport  industry.  The  aim  is  to  reinforce  the 
competitiveness  and  performance  of  European  transport  manufacturing  industries 
and  related  services  including  logistic  processes  and  retain  areas  of  European 
leadership (such as aeronautics). 

d)  Socio-economic  and  behavioural  research  and  forward  looking  activities  for  policy 
making.  The  aim  is  to  support  improved  policy  making  which  is  necessary  to 
promote  innovation  and  meet  the  challenges  raised  by  transport  and  the  related 
societal needs.  

H2020  differs  from  previous  framework  programmes  as  it  brings  together  all  EU  funded  R&I 
with one set of rules and  coherent  funding for taking  ideas to market  with a  strong  accent  on 
partnerships. In this respect the Transport JUs, and S2R, as one of them fits perfectly with this 
concept. 

12 

 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

3.1.5 Overview of policy implications and Shift2Rail 

Overall transport activity in the European Union is expected to grow substantially by 2050, with 
freight volumes increasing by more than 80% and passenger volumes by more than 50%. The 
majority of this growth is likely to go to road but this also implies increased externalities such as 
congestion, traffic accidents, poor air quality and increased Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. 
The  development  of  new  technologies  and  innovative  approaches  in  business  models,  services 
and  products,  is  recognised  as  playing  an  instrumental  role  in  achieving  a  faster  and  cheaper 
transition  to  a  more  efficient  and  sustainable  European  transport  system.  In  particular  by 
improving  vehicles’  efficiency  through  new  engines,  materials  and  design;  cleaner  energy  use 
with  new  fuels  and  propulsion  systems;  better  use  of  networks;  and  safer  and  more  secure 
operations through information and communication systems. 

Public-private partnerships are one of the Horizon 2020 implementation tools, where all involved 
partners  commit  to  support  the  development  and  implementation  of  industrial  research  and 
innovation  activities  of  strategic  importance  to  the  Union's  competitiveness  and  industrial 
leadership or to addressing specific societal challenges. 

The S2R JU is part of the Smart, Green and Integrated Transport Challenge under the Societal 
Challenges pillar of Horizon 2020, alongside the SESAR JU, the Clean Sky JU and the FCH JU. As 
mentioned  the  Smart,  Green  and  Integrated  Transport  Challenge  aims  to  boost  the 
competitiveness of the European transport industries and achieve a European  transport system 
that  is  resource  efficient,  climate-and-environmentally-friendly,  safe  and  seamless  for  the 
benefit of all citizens, the economy and society, in accordance with the Europe 2020 Strategy. It 
should  also  meet  the  2030  and  2050  targets  set  out  in  the  Transport  White  Paper,  as  well  as 
those of other policy initiatives. 

Ambitious  EU  goals  on  climate  change,  energy  use  and  environmental  protection  mean  the 
railway  sector  will  be  required  to  take  on  a  larger  share  of  transport  demand  in  the  next 
decades.  Part  of  this  will  be  delivered  with  improved  infrastructure,  new  rolling-stock  and 
cleaner fuels but modal shift will also play a defining role in achieving the EU ambitions and it is 
clear that the take up of new processes and innovative technologies needs to be accelerated. 

However, actual trends in overall transport growth are not yet in line with the European policy 
goals despite recent public and other significant investments in infrastructure and services. The 
reality is that the modal share of passenger rail has remained constant and the modal share of 
rail freight in Europe has decreased in the past decade. Rail needs to become more attractive to 
the  end  user  and  these  trends  need  to  be  reversed  if  the  rail  sector  is  going  to  remain 
competitive and fulfil the policy ambitions of Europe.  

Innovation and research is seen as key instrument to deliver policy goals, as set out the White 
Paper  and  SERA.  In  this  respect  S2R  is  responsible  for  managing  all  direct  rail  research  and 
therefore integrates  and coordinates all  R&I  activities specific to rail. Compared to previous FP 
research this will help to avoid fragmentation and ensure continuity. In addition, in terms of EU 
added  value  the  leverage  effect  brought  by  the  members  participation  through  in  kind 
contributions and long-term commitment is considered to be higher than before.  

3.2 Overview of the structure of railway systems 

It is worth setting out the structure  of  the  railway transportation system  in Europe to put this 
interim  evaluation  in  context.  Rail  differs  from  many  other  sub-sectors  of  transport,  such  as 
aviation or road, in the sense that it is more constrained by a higher number of technical sub-
systems rigidly interfacing with one another. These rigid interfaces are subject to regulation for 
reasons of compatibility and safety. 

The  whole  railway  system  comprises  of  several  sub-systems  that  exchange,  through  their 
various interfaces, both productive interactions (services and functions), and unproductive ones 

 
 
(constraints),  the  majority  are  of  a  highly  technical  nature  (reflected  in  the  high  numbers  of 
highly skilled engineers that are required for any rail network to function properly).  

The  rail  sub-systems  are  recognised  by  the  European  regulations5,  and  different  Technical 
Specifications for Interoperability (TSI)6 are allocated. These are divided into two main areas: 

Structural sub-systems: 

  Rolling stock (rail vehicles) 

  Control-command (ATP, ATC, ATO7) and signalling  

 

Infrastructure  (including  tracks  and  their  sub-structure,  bridges  and  tunnels,  stations 
etc.) 

 

Energy feeding system (electrification) 

Functional sub-systems 

  Operations 

  Maintenance 

 

Telematics applications for freight and for passengers (this being th only part of a wider 
telecommunications subsystem that is considered by the interoperability directive) 

All aspects of Rolling stock, control-command and infrastructure are dealt with by the three first 
innovation  programs  of  S2R  (IP1,  IP2,  IP3  respectively),  telecommunications  are  partly  dealt 
with by the fourth innovation program (IT solutions). It is noted at this stage that one structural 
sub-system is not dealt with by the JU (electrification) and that operations and maintenance are 
also not dealt with to any extent in the current innovation programs, except to a small extent in 
the freight dedicated program (IP5). 

The  railway  transport  ecosystem  is  further  complicated  by  its  fragmentation  into  a  number  of 
transport services that interconnect to some extent but have different profiles, regulations and 
standards:   

 

 

 

 

urban  rail  services  (outside  the  scope  of  the  EU  Interoperability  and  Safety  Directives 
and outside of the SERA) 

suburban and regional services 

intercity services (including high speed) 

freight services 

These service categories bring in a number of different players into this ecosystem: 

 

urban operators,  

5   System breakdown proposed by the Interoperability Directive, 2008/57/EC. 

6  

7  

The Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) are Commission regulations under the Interoperability directive. 
There  is  generally  one  TSI  per  subsystem,  the  objective  of  the  TSI  being  to  alleviate  the  technical  barriers  to 
interoperability  of  the  European  railway  system,  in  particular  in  terms  of  harmonisation  of  interfaces  between  the 
different subsystems 

ATP : automatic train protection, ATC : automatic train control, ATO : automatic train operation. The ETCS is the ATC 
component of the ERTMS, the European Rail Traffic Management System. 

14 

 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

  main  line  railway  undertakings  (passengers  and/or  freight),  either  incumbent  national 

operators, regional operators or freight transport “new entrants”8  

  main line infrastructure managers, generally in charge of a national network at the scale 

of the territory of a Member State 

  maintenance companies 

 

rolling stock owners and lessors etc. 

Any  initiative  taken  to  improve  the  overall  performance  and  attractiveness  of  the  European 
railway system should therefore also involve a broad range of market players representing the 
‘ecosystem’ of the European railway sector. In addition, although this is slowly changing, there 
is a historic legacy of local  suppliers meeting  the  needs of national state run rail systems that 
extend this ‘ecosystem’ unnecessarily. S2R is seen to play an important role in bringing all these 
players together, and thus aligning developments for the European rail system. Amongst others, 
its objectives are to reduce costs and speed up the deployment of innovations. 

The generic risks in innovation cycles are heightened in the rail sector by: 

  Complex  interactions  between  different  rail  segments  and  the  need  for  synchronicity 

between innovations. 

 

Long  product  life-cycles  (of  30  years  or  more),  inhibiting  the  rapid  deployment  of  new 
rail technologies. 

  Unequal distribution of innovation benefits between stakeholders, reducing incentives to 

invest in new technologies. 

 

Lack of synergies with other industrial sectors, especially in emerging technologies. 

There  are  also  a  large  number  of  other  stakeholders  and  interested  parties  who  are  indirectly 
involved,  whose  needs  or  opinions  must  be  considered  (namely,  public  authorities,  workers 
unions, associations of freight forwarders and passengers, academia and research organisations 
etc.).  

3.2.1 Background on Shift2Rail  

Prior  to  the  creation  of  S2R,  the  majority  of  EU  funded  research  was  undertaken  under  the 
Framework  Programmes,  and  latterly  as  part  of  H2020.  In  the  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document  and  summary  of  the  impact  assessment  (COM(2013)  922  final)  to  accompany  the 
Proposal for a Council Regulation to establish the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking the following four 
key drivers were noted as being barriers to achieving the SERA:  

 

 

Fragmentation  among  railway  ecosystems,  with  a  patchwork  of  disparate  regional  and 
national  systems,  networks  and  technical  operating  standards.  The  industry  has  to 
develop  tailored  vehicles/and  rolling  stock,  designed  to  meet the  unique  constraints  of 
relatively small national markets. This high level of product customisation constitutes a 
barrier to the SERA, but it also results in increased production costs.  

Fragmentation among the subsystems of the rail sector. Complex interactions between 
subsystems  (infrastructure,  rolling  stock  and  signalling  equipment  manufacturers, 
railway undertakings and infrastructure managers) limit the potential of improving one 

8  

The  term  « new  entrant »  is  used  to  designate  new  railway  undertakings,  generally  specialising  in  freight 
transportation,  who  are  benefiting  from  the  European  directives  on  market  opening  to  come  on  the  market  and 
compete against « incumbent » national operators. 

 
 
                                                
specific part of the system or of proposing breakthrough solutions that have an impact 
on  the  whole  system  and  that  can  be  deployed  in  the  complete  SERA.  To  give  one 
example:  there  are  something  like  14  different  signalling  systems  across  Europe  that 
have  to  be  brought  together.  This  is  time  consuming  as  well  as  expensive  as  firstly  a 
consensus needs to be reached, then common standards agreed and finally the national 
systems need to change.  

 

Fragmentation  along  the  innovation  life  cycle.  In  FP7,  EU  research  efforts  focused 
primarily  on  pre-competitive  innovation  research  at  low  Technology  Readiness  Levels. 
There  have  been  few  large-scale  demonstration  projects  (now  a  major  component  of 
S2R) and a significant part of knowledge generated by the European R&I projects have 
not been taken to market. 

European  Technology  Platforms  (ETPs)  are  industry-led  stakeholder  fora  recognised  by  the 
European  Commission  as  key  actors  in  driving  innovation,  knowledge  transfer  and  European 
competitiveness. ETPs develop research and innovation agendas and roadmaps for action at EU 
and  national  level  to  be  supported  by  both  private  and  public  funding.  They  mobilise 
stakeholders to deliver on agreed priorities and share information.  

There are five transport related ETPs, ACARE (aviation), ALICE (logistics), ERRAC (rail), ERTRAC 
(road) and waterborne.  ERRAC was set up in 2001 to help create a single European body with 
both the competence and capability to help revitalise the European rail sector and make it more 
competitive,  by  fostering  increased  innovation  and  guiding  research  efforts  at  European  level. 
All  major  rail  stakeholders  are  gathered  within  ERRAC  and  it  comprises  of  45  representatives 
from  each  of  the  major  European  rail  research  stakeholders:  manufacturers,  operators, 
infrastructure  managers,  the  European  Commission,  EU  Member  States,  academics  and  users’ 
groups.  ERRAC  covers  all  forms  of  rail  transport:  from  conventional,  high  speed  and  freight 
applications to urban and regional services. 

Since its launch in 2001, ERRAC has produced a number of important and influential documents, 
such  as  the  Joint  Strategy  for  European  rail  Research  –  Vision  2020,  and  the  most  recent 
document  published  by  the  platform,  RailRoute  2050,  the  sustainable  backbone  of  the  Single 
European  Transport  Area,  an  initial  update  of  the  strategic  vision  of  ERRAC,  in  preparation  of 
Horizon  2020.  The  European  vision  for  railway  research  and  innovation  outlined  in  ‘Railroute 
2050’  illustrates  the  research  pillars  that  need  to  be  supplemented  by  the  corresponding 
investment  pillar.  ERRAC  also  developed  a  set  of  roadmaps  via  the  EU  funded  (FP7)  projects 
such  as  FOSTER  RAIL  (2013-2016),  which  developed  a  Rail  Business  Scenario  and  newer 
Strategic Rail Research and Innovation Agenda. 

ERRAC is designed to focus on: 

1. Define and implement steps to achieve a joint European rail research and innovation strategy 

2. Enhance collaborative European rail research and innovation and  

3. Advice on future rail research needs to the European Commission for Horizon 2020. 

ERRAC’s  role  is  to  define  the  research  needs  in  order  to  realise  the  objectives  of  the  Europe-
2020  strategy,  support  the  development  of  the  future  European  Framework  Programme, 
Horizon 2020 and the objectives of the 2011 White Paper.  

It is therefore perfectly set up to help provide guidance to S2R, however many of the members 
of  ERRAC  are  also  supporter  of  S2R  and  this  has  had  the  unforeseen  consequence  of  making 
ERRAC  somewhat  redundant.  The  experts  are  convinced  of  the  need  of  a  body  that  provides 
foresight into the future research needs and aligning these with the H2020 and other EU policy, 
but the current structure of ERRAC does not provide this. 

16 

 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

3.3. The initiative and its objectives 

3.3.1 Origin of the Joint Undertaking 

The  association  of  the  European  railway  manufacturing  industry  (UNIFE),  initiated  discussions 
with  the  European  Commission  on  the  possibility  of  launching  a  European  railway  Joint 
Technology Initiative (JTI) in 2010. This was the result of having taken part in the coordination 
of numerous EU funded collaborative research projects, under successive Framework Programs. 
Notwithstanding  the  excellent  technical  results  of  most  of  these  projects,  the  European 
manufacturing  industry  realised  that  for  participating  in  collaborative  European  research  in 
railways  was  limited  by  the  processes  for  determining  the  research  topics,  the  formation  of 
consortia  and  selection  of  projects  under  that  system  and  the  results  were  not  being  adopted 
quickly enough by the industry. This was due in particular to the following reasons: 

 

 

The  project  topics  proposed  by  the  EC  lacked  continuity  from  one  call  to  another, 
notwithstanding the coordination efforts made by European Railways Research Advisory 
Council (ERRAC)9. 

The  Framework  Programme  rules  for  research  required  the  creation  of  different 
consortia from project to project, jeopardising the chances of continuity of consortia to 
continue  to  work  together  from  one  call  to  the  next,  as  well  as  to  make  progress 
towards actual implementation of innovation and build on knowledge created. 

  As  a  result  of  this  lack  of  overall  coherency,  the  fragmentation  of  the  research  efforts 
and  the  fragmentation  of  the  industry  itself,  the  shared  interests  of  the  industry 
members was generally limited to pre-competitive subjects. The projects were therefore 
either    “blue  sky”  (TRL  0  or  1)  or,  the  opposite,  such  as  to  support  regulation  and 
standardisation (e.g. closing TSI open points). 

 

 

 

The  deliverables  of  the  standardisation  projects  have  generally  been  transferred  into 
either  industry  standards  (e.g.  FP6  Modtrain  or  Modsafe  or  FP7  Safe  interiors  or 
Cleaner-D etc.) or to European standards and regulations (e.g. FP7 Trio-train projects), 
but  the  industry  understood  that  there  would  be  soon  no  other  subjects  to  explore  in 
these  domains, apart from  any changes in standards  and regulations that would result 
from breakthrough innovation.  

The  deliverables  of  low  TRL  projects  generally  encountered  a  low  and  slow  market 
uptake and impact due to the fragmentation of the railway transport ecosystem. 

The amount of EC funding available for the railway industry was also quite limited10 and 
there was no continuity in the medium term. Therefore there were insufficient incentives 
to create momentum towards actual collaborative innovation between the various actors 
of the sector.  

As  a  result,  the  market  uptake  of  EU  research  projects  outputs  was  generally  lower  than  the 
ones on standards and regulations. Thus the industry realised that the conditions under the FP’s 
research  programmes  constrained  them  from  gaining  much  in  the  way  of  benefit  from  future 
collaborative  programmes,  especially  in  terms  of  achieving  the  goal  of  building  the  Single 
European Railway Area (SERA) or towards the objective of shifting a large amount of passenger 
travel and freight to rail, as set up by the EC White Paper on transport, published in 2011.  

9    See paragraph 3.2.1 

10   The European Union contributed to an amount of about 150 M€ to the railway related projects in the scope of the FP7 
(2007 to 2013), to be compared with about 2.3 billion allocated to aeronautics and aviation during the same period and 
a foreseen amount of 450 M€ to be invested in the S2R JU as part of H2020 (2014 to 2020). 

 
 
                                                
Therefore they initiated the idea of creating a joint technology initiative, under the leadership of 
UNIFE, as a more stable organisation to foster long-term collaborative research and innovation 
and  which  would  also  justify  higher  funding  levels  from  both  the  industry  and  the  European 
Union. The concept was also welcomed by two major infrastructure managers, who both shared 
the same high level of interest in participating in European wide, collaborative research and who 
had the same strategic needs to become more customer focussed. This led to an initial proposal 
(the SHIFT2RAIL JTI proposal), submitted to the EC in July 2012, and completed in November 
2013 by a finalised “Technical Programme to the Proposal”11.  

Several options were examined by the initial promoters and the European Commission, with a 
view  to  overcoming  the  fragmentation  of  the  railway  ecosystem  and  the  lack  of  continuity  of 
research, leading to the decision to create an institutional PPP. The rationale for it was that the 
development  of  a  long-term  strategy,  in  close  cooperation  with  all  market  players,  that  would 
ensure that R&I projects support the competitiveness of the rail sector, while the Commission's 
leading  role  would  ensure  the  alignment  of  the  R&I  agenda  with  SERA  objectives.  The  stable 
nature  of  the  iPPP,  the  clear  definition  of  intellectual  property  rules,  and  the  firm  commitment 
from  the  EU  gave  increased  confidence  to  public  and  private  partners,  stimulating  higher 
investment  levels.  Legally  binding  commitments  from  industry  to  match  EU  funds  would  help 
ensure  a  direct  leverage  effect  that  was  estimated  as  being  at  least  30%  higher  than  other 
options.  As  the  conditions  for  participation  could  be  managed  in  a  flexible  and  transparent 
manner, the iPPP structure would allow broad stakeholder participation and a targeted approach 
towards SMEs.  

After two years of negotiations between the European Commission, the industry promoters and 
the  Member  States  and  intensive  legal  investigations  by  the  Commission  to  set  up  the  JU 
regulation  in  agreement  with  the  Council,  the  S2R  JU  was  finally  established  by  the  Council 
regulation No 642/2014 of 16 June 2014.  

The  creation  of  its  structures  and  processes  were  heavily  influenced  by  other  transport  JUs, 
especially Clean Sky. It took a further two years to properly enact all the legal and management 
requirements and to appoint a permanent Executive Director. This means that it has only been 
operational for less than two years at the time of this evaluation. It should be noted that despite 
this  its  strategic  Master  Plan  does  not  significantly  differ  in  technical  content  from  the  initial 
proposal.  In  addition,  this  other  JUs  such  as  Clean  Sky  1  also  experienced  similar  time  lags 
between regulation and implementation.  

Discussions with both manufacturers and operators, as well as with the European Commission, 
has shown that, overall, the rational for setting up S2R can still be considered to be valid. 

3.3.2 Description of the creation of the Joint Undertaking 

The Joint Undertaking Shift2Rail (S2R) was created to respond to the objectives defined in the 
White Paper and in the Fourth Railway Package, namely the goal of strengthening the role of rail 
in the transport system, given its inherent advantages in terms of environmental performance, 
land  use,  energy  consumption  and  safety.  A  key  initiative  in  achieving  this  goal  is  also  the 
creation of a Single European Railway Area (SERA). It is recognised that there is need for A lot 
significant progress to be made by the sector in terms of efficiency, reliability, sustainability and 
more generally, user friendliness and attractiveness. 

11    At  the  date  of  submission  of  the  Technical  Programme  to  the  Proposal,  the  SHIFT2RAIL  JTI  MOU  signatories were : 
Acciona,  Alstom,  Amadeus,  Ansaldo  Breda,  Ansaldo  STS,  AZD,  Bombardier,  CAF,  Faiveley,  HaCon,  Knorr-Bremse, 
MerMec, NetworkRail, Oltis, SelexES, Siemens, SNCF, Strukton Rail, Talgo, Thales, Trafikverket, Vossloh, soon joined 
by DB, FS and Indra. These have largely remained unchanged in the S2R although not all became founding members. 

18 

 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

Figure 3: Intervention logic diagram 

The European rail sector and especially the industry was also aware of the competitive threat to 
its global positioning, especially from Asia, linked in particular with the massive Chinese railway 
investments in infrastructure and their rolling stock production capacity.  

The  S2R  JU  is  tasked  with  implementing  a  strategic  Master  Plan,  which  identifies  the  major 
objectives of Shift2Rail as follows, closely related to the above-mentioned strategic context and 
EU policies: 

  Supporting  the  achievement  of  the  Single  European  Railway  Area  (SERA)  through  the 
development  of  solutions  facilitating  the  removal  of  remaining  technical  obstacles  in 
terms  of  interoperability;  and  make  the  transition  to  a  more  integrated,  efficient  and 
safe EU railway market, guaranteeing the proper interconnection of technical solutions. 

  Radically  enhancing  the  attractiveness  and  competitiveness  of  the  European  railway 
system to ensure a modal shift towards rail through a faster and less costly transition to 
a more attractive,  user-friendly (including  for  persons with  reduced mobility), efficient, 
reliable, and sustainable European rail system. 

  Helping the European rail industry to retain and consolidate its leadership on the global 
market for rail products and services by ensuring that Research & Innovation activities 
and results can provide a competitive advantage to EU industries and by stimulating and 
accelerating the market uptake of innovative technologies. 

The intervention of S2R along these lines is summarised in the Figure 4 below, extracted from 
the Master Plan: 

 
 
 
  
 
Figure 4: S2R diagram (source: S2R JU governance and process handbook) 

3.3.3 S2R governance structure  

The  management  structure  shown  in  figure  5  has  been  created  in  line  with  the  regulation 
establishing  S2R,  complemented  by  ‘Rules  of  Procedures  of  the  Governing  Board  of  the  S2R 
JU’12.  The  Governing  Board  is  made-up  of  the  European  Commission,  the  founding  members, 
representatives of the associate members and observers. 

The JU day-to-day management is ensured by an Executive Director, who is a staff member of 
the  JU,  nominated  by the  Governing  Board  following  a  proposal  by the  European  Commission. 
The Executive director is assisted by a Secretariat and a Programme management department. 
The programme office is led by the Head of research and innovation, and programme managers 
are in charge of one or several IPs and CCAs. They assist in the management, monitoring and 
evaluation of all aspects of the JU IPs and their specific projects. 

The  research  and  innovation  activity  of  each  IP  and  CCA  is  lead  by  a  steering  committee  of 
representatives of the JU members involved in  that IP and each steering committee is chaired 
by an IP or CCA coordinator. 

12     http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/rail/doc/2014-07-30-rules-of-procedure-of-the-governing-

board-of-the-shift2rail-ju.pdf 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

Figure 5: The S2R JU governance 

There is a general agreement amongst stakeholders that the current management structure of 
the  JU  is  well  adapted  to  the  needs  (in  the  present  scope  of  work  as  defined  by  the  strategic 
work  plan),  The  team  is  seen  to  be  well  organised  and  fully  dedicated  to  the  success  of  the 
initiative and any gaps  are  in  the  process of being filled as several new programme managers 
have been recently recruited.  

Each  and  every  project  reproduces  the  general  JU  management  structure  and  a  number  of 
internal project management “groups” (SMC, TMC, end users group, advisory boards and many 
others) are created at each time.  

3.3.4 Technical structure of the program13 

In order to reach  the S2R JU  major  objectives,  the Master Plan identifies the main operational 
and  technological  innovations  that  will  be  required to  achieve  the  overall  objectives  of  the  JU. 
These  are  structured  around  five  asset-specific  Innovation  Programmes  (IPs)  and  five 
crosscutting themes and activities (CCA), which constitute the S2R strategic action plan and are 
further elaborated in the S2R Multi-Annual Action Plan (MAAP), presently under revision. 

Originally,  the  promoters  of  the  S2R  programme  proposed  three  Innovation  Programs,  the 
scopes of  which  were  strongly  related  to  the  structural  subsystems  identified by  the  European 
regulations for railways, the electrification system being the only one that was not considered as 
a subject for collaborative research. These were: 

 

 

 

Innovation Programme 1 (IP1): Cost-efficient and reliable trains, including high capacity 
trains and high speed trains 

Innovation Programme 2 (IP2): Advanced traffic management and control systems 

Innovation  Programme  3  (IP3):  Cost  Efficient,  Sustainable  and  Reliable  High  Capacity 
Infrastructure 

Two  other  programs,  and  the  need  for  cross-cutting  activities,  were  later  identified  after 
discussions with the European Commission and were included in the proposal that was officially 
submitted in July 2012: 

13 The management structure is depicted in 7.1.1. 

 
 
 
                                                
 

 

Innovation Programme 4 (IP4): IT Solutions for attractive railway services  

Innovation  Programme  5  (IP5):  Technologies  for  sustainable  and  attractive  European 
rail  freight.  It  should  be  noted  that  IP5  is the  only  IP  that  is  not  linked  with  a  specific 
subsystem.  

  Cross-cutting themes and activities (CCAs) 

Figure  5:  Technical  structure  of  the  S2R  work  plan  (source:  S2R  JU  governance  and 
process handbook) 

3.3.5 Relevance of the working programme 

The content of the S2R Master-plan, structured into 5 innovation programs is highly influenced 
by  the  technical  scope  of  the  European  legislation  for  railways,  recently  consolidated  by  the 
technical pillar of the Fourth Railway Package.  

Despite  the  Master-plan  being  developed  a  number  of  years  ago  it  is  still  considered  to  be 
relevant.  However,  it  is  also  recognised  that  new  and  emerging  trends  in  the  transportation 
market  (driver-less  cars/  on  demand  travel,  Uber/  Bla  Bla  car/  car  pooling  /  car  sharing 
platforms/ mobility  as  a  service)  were  not  identified  5  years  ago during  the  elaboration of  the 
program  and  that  they  may  significantly  impact  the  attractiveness  of  European  Rail.  This  was 
pointed  out  in  several  of  the  interviews.  These  changes  might  generate  new  needs  for 
innovation  to  be  incorporated  into  S2R-2  as  additions  rather  than  replacement  of  research 
objectives  at  the  current  time.  The  remaining  time  to  the  end  of  the  present  programme  and 
obvious  budgetary  constraints  will  not  allow  any  major  changes  to  cope  with  these  emerging 
topics, except in the form of some open calls.  

3.3.5.1 Detailed technical content (from the Master plan) 

The  technical  scope  of  the  innovation  programs,  as  summarised  in  the  table  below,  was 
determined in consideration of two main criteria: 

 

the expected contribution to the fulfilment of the high level objectives 

22 

 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

 

the agreement between the future members of the JU that only a strong and long term 
collaboration scheme would allow them to take innovation risks that they would possibly 
not have taken alone 

Areas of activity 

Main objectives14 

IP1 (indicative budget: 225 M€) 

Train interiors 

Customer experience 

Doors and intelligent access systems 

Capacity,  customer  experience, 
reliability, removal of open points 

improved 

Traction 

Train control and monitoring system 

Reduced 
externalities, 
improved reliability, improved standardisation 

operating 

costs, 

Improved 
investment costs, improved standardisation 

reliability  and 

safety, 

lower 

Lighter car-body shell 

Reduced operating costs, externalities,  

Running gear 

Brakes 

Reduced  operating  costs, improved  reliability, 
externalities,  

Reduced 
removal 
standardisation 

operating 
of 

open 

costs, 

points, 

externalities, 
improved 

IP2 (indicative budget: 195 M€) 

Smart,  fail-safe  communication  and  positioning 
systems 

Lower investment costs, improved reliability 

Traffic management evolution 

Improved reliability, enhanced capacity 

Automation 

Reduced operating costs, improved capacity 

Moving blocks and train integrity 

Improved capacity 

Smart procurement and testing 

Virtual coupling 

Improved 
certification and authorisation 

standardisation, 

simplified 

Reduction  of  operating  costs, 
capacity, customer experience  

improved 

Cyber security 

Improved security 

IP3 (indicative budget: 153 M€) 

New directions in switch and crossing 

Improved  reliability,  reduced  operating  costs, 
externalities, 
removal  of  open  points, 
improved standardisation 

14 Note that respecting and adoption of TSI is a common objective to all items. 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Innovative track design and materials 

Reduced 
removal 
standardisation 

operating 
of 

open 

costs, 

points, 

externalities, 
improved 

Cost effective tunnel and bridge solutions 

Lower  investment  costs,  reduced  operating 
costs 

Intelligent system maintenance 

Reduced 
standardisation 

operating 

costs, 

improved 

Improved station concepts 

Customer experience, improved security 

Energy efficiency 

Reduced operating costs, externalities 

IP4 (indicative budget: 86 M€) 

Technical framework 

Improved reliability, improved standardisation, 
customer experience, enhanced capacity 

Customer experience applications 

Customer experience 

Multimodal travel services 

IP5 (indicative budget: 83 M€) 

Implementation 
analytics 
Freight electrification, brake and telematics 

strategies 

and  business 

Access and operation 

Wagon design 

terminal,  hubs,  marshalling  yards, 

Novel 
sidings 
New freight propulsion concepts 

Customer 
standardisation, reduced operating costs 

experience, 

improved 

All major objectives 

Enhanced  capacity,  reduced  operating  costs, 
externalities, improved standardisation 

Reduced  operating  costs,  enhanced  capacity, 
customer experience 

Enhanced  capacity,  customer  experience, 
externalities, reduced operating costs 

Enhanced capacity, reduced operating costs 

Enhanced  interoperability,  reduced  operating 
costs, externalities 

Sustainable rail transport of dangerous goods 

Improved safety 

Long  term  vision  for  an  autonomous  rail 
freight system 

Reduced  operating  costs,  enhanced  capacity, 
customer experience 

Table 1 Summary of the S2R Master Plan 

It  has  to  be  noted  that  the  above  brief  description  of  the  technical  content  is  subject  to 
adaptation and improvement through  the revision of  the multi-annual action plan  (MAAP),  and 
as a result of the calls for projects to members, as well as to external partners (open calls). 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

 3.3.5.2 Demonstration and implementation 

The  demonstration  and  implementation  plan  is  based  on  different  technology  readiness  levels 
(TRL) of projects from the lowest to the highest, as summarised in the diagram below: 

Figure  6.  Overview  of  the  technical  demonstrators  (source:  S2R  JU  governance  and  process 
handbook) 

This S2R evaluation has taken the following aspects into consideration:  

4.  EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

  Effectiveness:  Progress  towards  meeting  the  objectives  set  for  the  JU,  including  how 
all parties in the PPPs live up to their financial and managerial responsibilities and keep 
an open non-discriminatory attitude towards a wide community of stakeholders. 

  Efficiency: The extent to which the SJU is being managed and operated efficiently.  

  Openness  The  extent  to  which  the  SJU  enables  world-class  research,  establishing 
Europe in a leadership position  globally,  and  how it engages with a  wider constituency 
to  open  the  research  to  the  broader  society.  (In  the  case  of  S2R  the  potential  of  the 
outputs are the only indicators available as no projects have been completed at the time 
of this evaluation). 

  Transparency: The extent to  which the  JU  keeps an open  non-discriminatory  attitude 
towards  a  wide  community  of  stakeholders  and  provides  them  with  easy  and  effective 
access to information. 

5.  METHODOLOGY AND PROCESSES FOLLOWED 

 5.1 The approach 

The specific tasks of the experts were to: 

 
 
 
 
  Collect,  analyse,  judge  and  present  data  including  both  quantitative  and  qualitative 

evidence that address the evaluation questions. 

  Answer  the  evaluation  questions  through  a  qualitative  assessment  based  on  robust 

evidence and supported by quantitative analysis, and to 

 

Formulate  conclusions  and  recommendations  in  relations  to  the  purpose  of  the 
evaluation exercise. 

The following actions were undertaken: 

  A review of existing literature (from the list provided by the Commission and using their 
own resources). A list can be found in the Bibliography, individual items are referenced in 
footnotes where used. 

  A series of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and interested parties. A full 
list of those who have been interviewed and the interview notes are available as annexes 
in CIRCA.  

 

Two questionnaires.  One organised by the commission open to the all beneficiaries and 
one  designed  for  the  evaluation  that  was  sent  to  145  email  addresses  of  stakeholders 
and interested parties, including the S2R Governing Board. A total of 55 responses were 
collected  between  March  and  June  2017  with  respondents  from  both  beneficiaries  and 
those  not  involved  with  S2R15.    The  EU  initiated  stakeholder  survey  was  undertaken  in 
late 2016 and early 2017. 73 responses were received and the majority of the answers 
came  from those  answering  in a professional  capacity  or on behalf of their organisation 
(69%).  37%  came  from  the  private  sector  (private  for  profit  excluding  education)  and 
27% (combined) came from research and academia with little input from SME’s (only 6% 
answered  yes  while  60%  did  not  answer  this  question).  The  majority  have  applied  for 
funding from the JU (64%). The majority are involved in the JU (58.9%) while 35% are 
not (all respondents answered this question). 

  Meetings and  focus groups. A number of meetings were arranged to collect information 
including interim meetings with the European Commission, the ERA, the JU management 
and the project coordinators (both for the JU and for the Lighthouse Projects).  

 5.2 Limitations – robustness of findings 

The  experts  considered  the  data  collected  to  be  sufficient  for  the  tasks  and  had  no  reason  to 
doubt the robustness of their findings based on this study and data.  

6.  IMPLEMENTATION: STATE OF PLAY OF THE S2R JU 

6.1 JU membership and selection of associate members 

Before  examining  the  associate  membership,  it  is  worth  recalling  who  are  the  founding 
members of the S2R JU. 

The  members  of  the  initial  group  of  promoters  of  the  S2R  JU16  were  six  members  of  the 
manufacturing industry: 

  Alstom (system integrator17) 

15    See annex for breakdown of respondents.  

16      This  initial  group  was  later  join  by  a  dozen  of  other  organisations  for  the  submission  of  the  final  proposal  to  the 
European  Commission.  Most  of  these  later  ones  became  associate  members,  either  directly  or  through  their 
participation in consortia. 

26 

 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

  Ansaldo STS (control command and signalling) 

  Bombardier (system integrator) 

  Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF) (rolling stock) 

  Siemens (system integrator) 

 

Thales (control command and signalling, communication systems) 

and two infrastructure managers: 

  Network Rail (UK) and 

 

Trafikverket (Sweden) 

All these companies committed to each put a minimum value of 30 M€ of their own resources, 
mostly in kind, over a seven years period, to join the initiative. These companies are referred to 
as  the  founding  Members  of  the  S2R  JU.  No  railway  undertaking  wished  to  participate  as  a 
founding  member,  mainly  due  to  the  difficulty  for  them  to  commit  to  this  long-term 
requirement.  It  is  nonetheless  recognised  that  the  operators’  expertise  remains  essential 
upstream  to  the  identification  of  the  needs,  definition  of  objectives  and  downstream  in  the 
demonstration of results of S2R. 

The  selection  of  Associated  Members,  which  occurred  before  the  JU  gained  its  autonomy,  was 
made under control of the EC, in accordance with the JU regulation. The call for expressions of 
interest  was  launched  in  October  2014  and  a  two-stage  process  was  followed,  ending  in  a 
presentation of the results to the JU Board.  

The Commission received 43 applications. These included 27 applications by single legal entities 
(SLEs) and 16 applications on behalf of consortia, making a total of 127 entities. 

Seven  applications  were  made  by  stakeholders  from  the  rail  operating  community  (ROC),  i.e. 
railway undertakings (RU), infrastructure managers (IM) or urban operators (URBAN) either as 
Single  Legal  Entities   (SLEs)  or  as  consortia.  The  research  community  (research  centres  or 
universities) was also rather well represented either as SLEs or consortia. Finally, there were 4 
applications from SMEs as single entities and a further 18 SMEs were involved in consortia.  

The  following  table  provides  information  on  the  representation  of  SMEs,  the  research 
community, the rail operating community and industry from those that applied. 

Organisation 
 Type  

SME 

Total 
number 
entities 

22 

of 

ROC 
(RU/IM/ 
Urban) 
23 

Research 
/University 

Large 
Industry 

Total 

33 

49 

127 

of 

Share 
total 
applications 

17% 

18% 

26% 

39% 

100% 

Table 2 Representation of the applications to be Associate Member  

In terms of geographical representation, there were significantly more applications from entities 
established in EU-15 countries than in the central and eastern Member States.  

17   A  system  integrator  is  a  company  involved  in  the  design  and  manufacturing  in  most  if  not  all  sub-systems  of  the 

railway transportation system and able to offer integrated railway transport solutions. 

 
 
                                                                                                                                              
Figure 7 Geographical balance of applicants to become Associate Members  

A  pre-selection  was  made  on  financial18,  economic  and  capacity  criteria.  Then  the  preselected 
applicants were invited to submit a detailed technical proposal on the basis of two documents of 
reference: 

 

The S2R JU Master plan 

  A  draft  multi-annual  action  plan,  including  in  particular  more  details  on  the  expected 
technology  demonstrators  and  system  demonstrators  and  in  which  the  founding 
members had indicated some needs for complementation of their expertise. 

Candidates were invited to submit proposals in areas:  

 

 

 

that  were  described  in  the  draft  multi-annual  action  plan  and  complementary  to  the 
activities proposed by the founding members;  

that were not yet identified in the draft multi-annual action plan, so long as they clearly 
justified  their  contribution  to  the  draft  S2R  Master  Plan  and  their  relevance  to  the 
Shift2Rail objectives;  

that  were  identified  as  being  of  interest  to  the  founding  members.  In  this  case,  the 
relative  merits  of  the  proposals  of  the  founding  and  associated  members  would  be 
subject  to  a  competitive  review  carried  out  under  the  responsibility  of  the  Executive 
Director  with  a  view  to pursuing  the  proposals  best meeting  the  objectives  of the  S2R 
initiative.  

This technical selection was conducted in June 2015, following the usual evaluation process for 
H2020  research  project  and  with  similar  questions  asked  to  the  evaluators  that  are  usually 
asked  for  evaluation  of  R&I  projects  proposals.  The  added  value  that  new  members  would 
possibly  bring  to  the  innovation  programs  in  which  they  applied  for  participation,  beyond  the 
pure  technical  and  scientific  quality  of  their  proposals,  was  therefore  not  really  evaluated  and 
the experts were not fully briefed to do so.  

The  process  for  selection  was  conducted  in  a  fair  and  transparent  manner  as  applicants  were 
clearly  informed  of  the  process  and  as  this  process  was  carefully  followed.  It  also  produced 

18 The minimum financial commitment for accession to the status of associate member was a contribution    fixed at 2,5% 

of  the  budget  of  each  of  the  Innovation  Program  in  which  the  applicant  proposed  to  participate,  i.e.between  2  and  6  M€ 

depending on the IP considered. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

broadly  acceptable  results  in  pure  terms  of  balancing  the  S2R  membership  between  the 
different  categories  of  economic  actors.  The  following  list  of  associate  members  was  finally 
published in the implementing decision of the Commission of December 8, 2015: 

  AERFITEC consortium 

  Amadeus IT Group SA 3. 

  AZD Praha s.r.o. 

  CFW consortium  

  Deutsche Bahn AG 

  DIGINEXT 

  EUROC consortium 

 

Faiveley Transport 

  HaCon Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH 

 

Indra Sistemas S.A.  

  Kapsch CarrierCom 

  Knorr-Bremse GmbH 

  MER MEC S.p.A. 

 

Patentes Talgo S.L. 

  Railenium Swi'TRACK'EN consortium 

  Smart DeMain consortium  

  SmartRaCon consortium 

  SNCF 

  Virtual Vehicle Austria consortium  

The size and scope of the organisations involved as founding or associate members in S2R can 
overall be considered as sufficiently representative of the major players and best organisations 
in the field to fulfil the short-term research objectives of S2R. However there are still gaps that 
should be filled both  in the medium  term  and certainly  in  the  long term  as  the final line up of 
associate members is considered to be  suboptimal by many of the founding  members and rail 
community.  This  is  more  fully  developed  in  the  effectiveness  section  of  this  report,  where  the 
evidence for this statement is given.  

6.2 Participation patterns in JU membership 

6.2.1 Participation per country 

In the graphic below representing the nationalities of the JU members (15 Member States of the 
EU plus Switzerland and Turkey), the 6 consortia among the 19 associate members have been 
each  accounted  for  as  a  single  company,  and  listed  under  the  nationality  of  the  consortium 
coordinator. This is to avoid distortions effects that would result from, for example, accounting 
individually the 11 Austrian members of the Virtual Vehicle Austria. A country that is indicated 
but  with  no  company  represented  means  that  it  is  a  consortium  member,  but  with  a  low 
contribution.  This  includes,  in  particular,  railway  undertakings  and  infrastructure  managers, 
members of the EUROC consortium (in two cases coming from countries outside of the EU) 

Companies  with  industrial  activities  in  several  countries  have  been  considered  as  belonging  to 
the country where their headquarters are established. 

 
 
8

6

4

2

0

Figure 8: S2R JU Membership: number of members by country. 

It can be seen that the S2R JU members with a significant activity belong to only 10 European 
countries. The experts further analysed this in order to give more insights into the contribution 
per country to the S2R  program weighted by  the  financial  contribution representing the status 
of the S2R members. In the absence of any definitive value the final contribution of each of the 
members, we took for this exercise the average contribution of a founding member, which is 25 
M€, the average contribution of an associate member (7.9 M€) and for the consortia, we divided 
this latter amount by the number of members of the given consortium. As it is also the case for 
the direct distribution, we were not able to take into account the way in which big international 
manufacturing companies will possibly spread their participation amongst their affiliates in other 
countries than the ones in which they have established their headquarters. However, as we are 
often speaking of Western Europe countries already well represented (France, Germany, Spain, 
Italy, Austria etc.), it is not expected to produce a significant change in the general shape of the 
distribution. 

100

80

60

40

20

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

…
h
c
e
z
C

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
l
a
t
I

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
d
e
N

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

…
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

K
U

y
e
k
r
u
T

Figure  9  S2R  JU  membership:  evaluated  contribution  per  country  in  M€  (see  above  the 
explanations on weighting) 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

6.2.2 Participation by sector 

The diagram  below represents the distribution of the  JU membership (all consortium  members 
being accounted) per business sector. 

Research bodies and
academia

Urban transport

RU and IM

Consultants and
engineering

Other private industry

Railway manufacturers

0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 10: Direct distribution of the number of JU Members by sector of activity.  

Using  the  same  weighting  factors  in  M€  as  above,  a  picture  of  the  actual  contribution  by 
economic sector can be seen.  

Research bodies and academia

19.0  

Urban transport

 0,56  

RU and IM

 74.4  

Consultants and engineering

 4.1  

Other private industry

 55.4  

Railway manufacturers

 271.6  

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Figure 11: Approximate contribution in M€ by economic sector  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 12. Distribution of the approximated contribution per country, private sector alone (M€) 

It can be seen that S2R has good support from the private sector from four countries (France, 
Germany, Spain and Italy). The largest contribution from the other countries is around a third of 
smallest contribution of the group of four (Italy).  

6.2.3 Trends and specificities in participation  

Given the present state of play, this analysis of the participation is essentially based on the  JU 
membership,  even  though  some  interesting  evolution  can  be  foreseen  as  a  result  of  the  first 
open calls. 

As  already  mentioned  the  membership  of  the  JU  has  been  correctly  balanced  between  the 
manufacturing  industry  and  the  operators,  in  consideration  to the  present  technical  content  of 
the  programme,  since  the  arrival  of  associate  members.  It  is particularly  true  if  one  considers 
that the manufacturing industry (about 77% of the evaluated contribution, of which 64% for the 
railway industry alone) is in charge of technology development and manufacturing, whereas the 
operators (about 18%) are rather involved in specification and demonstration. 

The distribution diagrams also confirm the predominance of EU-15 countries in the participation 
to  S2R  and  the  almost  total  absence  of  the  urban  transport  sector.  The  Czech  republic  is  the 
only  central  European  country  where  a  member  of  the  JU  is  established.  The  participation  per 
country is very much linked with the implantation of the railway manufacturing industry, with a 
significant  contribution  of  German,  French  and  Italian  companies  and  a  particularly  noticeable 
contribution of the Spanish industry.  

The  participation  of  railway  undertakings  is  essentially  from  French  and  German  national 
railways,  discounting  the  rather  symbolic  presence  of  10  others  as  members  of  the  EUROC 
consortium.  This  imbalance  in  the  geographic  participation  of  RUs,  as  compared  to  the 
involvement  of  their  own  national  manufacturing  industries  is  considered  to  be  a  weakness  in 
terms of opportunities for demonstration in service of the JU results. This issue should be given 
attention  in  the  coming  months  by  the  JU  management,  its  supporting  bodies  and  the  sector 
organisations, so as to determine in advance the possible shortcoming to be compensated and 
prepare open calls accordingly. 

32 

 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

The  opposite  can  be  seen  in  the  British  and  Swedish  contributions,  which  come  entirely  from 
railway  operating  companies,  through  the  participation  as  founding  members  of  their  two 
national infrastructure managers. 

In most of the central European countries the absence of any significant JU membership can be 
considered as a logical result of the very limited financial capabilities of their railway operators 
and  of  the  absence  of  any  strong  national  railway  manufacturing  industry.  Poland  is  however 
noticeably  poorly  represented,  if  one  considers  both  the  importance  of  its  railway  transport 
system  in  the  national  economy  and  the  significance  of  its  railway  manufacturing  industry.  As 
already  mentioned,  a  strong  lobbying  of  the  Polish  railway  sector  by  the  promoters  of  the 
initiative  unfortunately  did  not  succeed  in  raising  the  interest  of  Polish  companies.  The 
participation of the Polish industry should therefore again be encouraged at the occasion of the 
launch of a possible S2R-2. It has however to be noticed that project grants following the first 
series of open calls in 2015-2016 has started to widen the participation to the programme to a 
larger number of Member States, including from Central and Eastern Europe.  

The participation of research bodies and academia, as indirect JU members through consortia, is 
relatively  modest  (about  4%).  The  status  of  JU  member  was  not  foreseen  for  them  and  it  is 
expected that they will get a higher share of the work program through successive open calls for 
proposals.  It  can  already  be  observed  with  the  results  of  the  first  open  calls  (66%  in  total). 
Therefore while recognizing that it is suboptimal in terms of JU membership, it is expected to be 
higher as more open calls are launched. A mere extrapolation of the first calls results would lead 
to a 20% share of the Union’s contribution allocated to research bodies, academia and SMEs. 

Answers to the Web questionnaire that was launched by the evaluation experts group show that 
less than half of stakeholders (47%) agree or fully agree that the JU is properly inclusive of all 
rail  sector  players,  nearly  one  third  would  like  to  see  improvements  and  15%  are  really  not 
satisfied (see diagram below). 

50

40

30

20

10

0

The JU is inclusive of all rail sector players? 
(% respondants)  

44 

29 

15 

9 

3 

Unable to
comment

Do not
agree

Partly
agree

Agree

Fully Agree

Figure 13: Responses from the Internet questionnaire on the extent that the JU is inclusive of 
all rail sector players 

From the profile of the respondents to the Internet questionnaire despite 47% agreeing that the 
JU  is  inclusive  of  all  rail  sector  players,  the  experts  feel  that  44%  only  partly  or  not  agreeing 
with  this  proposition  is  high  enough  for  this  evaluation  to  consider.  This  was  also  widely 

 
 
 
 
 
confirmed in the interviews. In other words, we do not say that not all players are there but that 
there are still gaps in the membership that need to be addressed.  

As  already  mentioned,  the  JU  might  have  to  think  about  possible  ways  of  better  balancing  its 
technical  and  political  membership,  possibly  through  some  sort  of  second  call  for  Associated 
Members.  Another  explanation  for  this  relatively  poor  perception  of  the  inclusiveness  of  all 
sector  players  by  the  stakeholders  (from  the  survey  and  interviews)  is  that  they  build  their 
judgement,  not  only  on  the  basis  of  the  present  scope  of  work,  as  proposed  by  the  founding 
members  in  2012,  but  in  the  scope  of  the  responsibility  of  the  JU  in  its  role  of  managing  all 
European railway focused research. This is a critical point that is going to be developed further 
below. 

Last but not the least, the evaluators have not received any sufficiently detailed information to 
assess gender balance in any detail.  

6.3 Overview of calls for proposals launched during the period 2014-2016 

6.3.1 Analysis of the results of the first calls 

In June 2016, the S2R JU awarded 27 grants (13 to proposals from its members other than the 
EU and 14 open calls) as a result of the 2015/2016 calls launched on 17 December 2015. The 
corresponding  grants  agreements  were  signed  between  July  and  October  2016,  allowing  the 
start  of  the  first  projects  in  September  2016.  The  total  value  of  the  Research  and  Innovation 
activities  amounted  to  167.3  M€.  This  total  value  was  split  between  142.4  M€  for  proposals 
submitted by JU members (co-funded at up to 63.3 M€) and 25 M€ for proposals submitted by 
consortia of non members (co-funded at a level of 24.7 M€). 

Only the results of open calls (OC) are analysed here under, as the results of calls to members 
(CFM) are the direct results of agreements between the members that have either existed since 
the  creation  of  the  JU  for  the  founding  members  or  since  the  selection  of  the  associated 
members.  The  results  of  the  CFM  (Call  for  Members)  come  therefore  only  as  a  partial 
confirmation of the participation patterns expected for the whole duration of the programme as 
shown in the preceding paragraphs.  

The  distribution  of  awarded  projects  per  country  to  non-JU  members,  in  terms  of  number  of 
projects and number of beneficiaries, is given by the diagrams below: 

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 14 Distribution of number of projects to non-JU members by country involvement 

34 

 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

20

16

12

8

4

0

Figure 15. Distribution of number of beneficiaries (source: JU management statistics)  

The  distribution  per  economic  sector  is  given  by  the  two  following  diagrams,  first  in  terms  of 
number of allocated projects, two in terms of funds granted. It can be seen at first glance that a 
major  objective  of  open  calls,  which  is  to  largely  open  the  participation  to  the  JU  works  to 
research organisations and SME has been reached. 

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Reasearch
bodies and
academia

SMEs (other
than research)

manufacturing
industry (non
SME)

RU and IM

Other Non-
Profit

Figure  16.  Distribution  of  the  beneficiaries  of  2015-2016  open  calls  by  economic  sector 
(source: data provided by the JU management)  

 
 
 
 
 
RU and IM 
3% 

manufacturi
ng industry 
(non SME) 
31% 

Reasearch 
bodies and 
academia 
41% 

SMEs 
(other 
than 
research) 
25% 

Figure 17. Distribution by economic sector of the funds allocated as a result of 2015-2016 open 
calls (source: data provided by the JU management)  

In November 2016, the JU issued its 2017 calls for proposals, for a total funding budget of 60,8 
M€, of which 19,5 M€ allocated to open calls. A significant increase of the number of responses 
per topic (see below, 6.5 competition for funding) is taken as a positive indication of the interest 
for the S2R JU activity. It is of course too early to give any indication of what are going to be 
the results of this call as the deadline for submission of proposals was March 30th. 

6.3.2 Allocation of funds per IP 

The diagram below shows the distribution of funds allocated so far under H2020, first by the EC 
in  the  frame  of the  lighthouse  projects  and  then by  the  JU  through  its projects  grants of  both 
types  resulting  from  the  first  calls  (grants  to  members  and  grants  following  open  calls).  The 
total  amount  of  this  present  EU  contribution  to  the  S2R  program  is  of  139  M€19,  i.e.  about  a 
third of the multi-annual total budget. The distribution per IP is rather similar in proportions to 
the one that is foreseen for the whole project in the MAAP.  

16 

18.5 

CCA

5.5 

IP5

IP4

IP3

IP2

IP1

33.1 

30 

36 

0

10

20

30

40

Figure  18:  Allocation  of  EC  funds  per  IP  and  CCA  at  the  date  of  completion  of  the  present 
report M€ 

19   Of  which  52  M€  allocated  to  lighthouse  projects  (100%  founding),  61  M€  to  the  projects  presented  by  JU  members 
(corresponding  to  approximately  half  of  the  projects  costs)  and  26  M€  allocated  to  projects  granted  following  open 
calls (100% founding). 

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

This  distribution  does  not  vary  significantly  in  proportions  if  the  in  kind  contribution  by  JU 
members is taken into account (distribution of the about 200M€ total given by the total budget 
diagram below). 

55 

50 

43 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

22 

23 

7.5 

IP1

IP2

IP3

IP4

IP5

CCA

Figure 19: Total budget M€ per IP and CCA at the date of completion of the present report 

6.4. Participation per topic and expected results 

The  process  of  selection  of  associate  members  resulted  in  certain  imbalances  of  participation 
between industry sectors in a couple of IPs. It is particularly the case with the two IPs that were 
not included in the original  plans of  the  manufacturing industry, as well as, to a lesser  extend 
and more facility to compensate, with some cross cutting activities20. 

In IP4 the disappearance of the railway undertakings that were members of the corresponding 
“lighthouse  project”  (see  below)  is  putting  the  program  in  a  difficult  position.  The  IP 
management  will  not  be  able  to  compensate  rapidly  for  this  absence  and  for  the  moment  the 
lighthouse  project  continues  on  100%  of  the  common  scope,  while  IP4  is  going  to  introduce 
technological  “bricks”  in  the  system.  This  partnership  of  this  IP  should  be  given  particular 
attention by the JU  management and its supporting bodies, considering  also that the  scope  of 
this IP is not rail transportation only, but multi-modal passenger transportation.  

It  is  the  opposite  case  in  IP5  (freight)  with  the  total  absence  of  any  manufacturer.  This  IP 
obviously suffers from the fact that the initial promoters of the JU had little interest in it (only 
one founding member, an infrastructure manager, is participating). It is most likely that this is 
based  on  a  general  opinion  among  the  manufacturing  industry  that  it  is  not  by  technological 
innovation that railway freight will be revitalised in Europe. It is only after the selection of the 
associate  members  that  the  IP  leadership  was  given  to  DB  AG,  who  had  to  define  a  technical 
scope and program for it and has  now  to  develop partnerships with other members of the JU. 
Furthermore, as we  will see  below, this is also  the  only IP that will not benefit at all from  the 
results  of  the  corresponding  “lighthouse  project”.  The  progress  of  this  IP  and  its  expected 
results  should  therefore  be  given  particular  attention  in  the  coming  months  by  the  JU 
management supported by the representative bodies of the sector.  

It is recognised that rail freight transportation is a sector where margins are small and there is 
little interest  from  those  in  the  market  to  invest  in  European  research  and  development.  That 
said it is a sector that also suffers from being considered marginal and therefore S2R presents a 
good opportunity for it to gain more attention. The existence of IP5 is by itself a good progress 
as compared to the situation that prevailed before the creation of the JU, as the IP5 budget is 
very significant as compared to any other research program engaged under previous FP and as 
it ensures continuity of innovation efforts for a significant period of time. It is certainly an area 

20   CCAs : weakness signalled by the SRG chairman 

 
 
 
                                                
in which the JU efforts will help achieve European policy ambitions for a major shift from road to 
rail.      

6.5 Competition for funding, Distribution of funds and Grant sizes 

It  is  probably  worth  reminding  here  what  are  the  principles  of  funding  under  the  S2R  JU  has 
they have been set up by the article 17 of the JU regulation. The Union financial contribution to 
operational costs (i.e. administrative costs excluded) shall be allocated as follows: 

a)  up  to  40  %  shall  be  allocated  to  founding  members,  other  than  the  Union,  and  their 

affiliated entities 

b)  up to 30 % shall be allocated to associated members and their affiliated entities 

c)  at least 30 % shall be allocated by  way  of competitive calls for proposals and calls for 

tenders.  

In the cases a) and b) (JU  members and their affiliates) the EU funding cannot be higher than 
50% of the operational costs of the projects, for projects awarded as a result of « open calls » 
(case C) the EUY funding may reach (end will generally) reach 100% of the projects’ costs. 

In all cases, the EU funding shall be allocated after evaluation of proposals received by the JU as 
a  result  of  « calls  for  members »  (CFM)  in  cases  a)  and  b)  and  open  calls  (case  c)).  This 
selection is made on the basis of an evaluation made by independent experts. 

JU  members  (both  direct  members  and  consortia  members)  cannot  take  part  in  any  proposal 
answering OC. 

As  a  result  of  the  above,  a  clear  distinction  has  to  be  made  between  competition  for  funding 
under CFM and under OC. 

In  the  first  case,  CFM  are  launched  as  a  direct  result  of  the  original  technical  and  financial 
commitments  of  the  concerned  JU  members.  Except  in  possible  cases  of  failure  by  any  JU 
member,  the  final  result  of  the  CFM  is  therefore  expected  to  simply  confirm  these  original 
commitments. For the moment it resulted in the 20 topics of the 3 first CFM (2015/2016/2017) 
having  been  subject  to  only  20  proposals  considered  as  valid,  and  to  the  projects  being 
allocated to the  corresponding  20  project  consortia.  It  is  felt that  the evaluation  and  selection 
process is somewhat limited to a scientific and technical quality check. 

In the second case (OM) the process of selection is identical to the one of selection of proposals 
coming in response to the usual  H2020 calls (except that the selection  process is managed by 
the JU  team and  not by the EC  services). The  level of competition for these  grants is deemed 
has  having  been  satisfactory,  with  a  total  number  of  43  proposals  received  in  answer  to  the 
2015-2016  OC  (15  topics)21.  In  both  cases  the  calls  have  attired  among  the  most  prestigious 
research bodies in Europe and have also resulted in satisfactory results in terms of participation 
of  SME  (see  fig.  15),  with  a  geographic  distribution  that  is  better  than  the  one  of  the  JU 
members. 

It  is  however  too  early  to  go  any  further  in  statistics,  with  only  25  M€  grants  having  been 
allocated so far. The average grant size for the 2015-2106 OC was 1,7 M€ per topic, it is going 
to  be  of  about  2  M€  as  a  result  of  the  2017  call.  It  can  be  seen  as  a  (modest)  result  of  the 

21 This year (call 2017) the number of proposals for 10 topics only has been 51. As far as CFM are  concerned, the number 
of  proposals  received  (7  for  this  2017  call)  remains  equal  to  the  number  of  topics,  for  the  same  reason  than  in  the 
preceding ones. 

38 

 
 
                                                
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

decision  has  also  been  taken  by  the  JU  management  to  reduce  the  number  of  topics  while 
increasing  their  individual  budget,  for  the  sake  of  simplification  of  the  management  of  the 
projects and to avoid having new partners in consortia with a too small budget share. 

7.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

A  number  of  aspects  of  the  evaluation  questions  (see  Section  4)  have  been  answered  in  the 
previous  sections of  this  report,  especially  in  terms of  transparency  and  openness.  The  Expert 
Group has made its conclusions and recommendations based on these evaluation aspects in the 
final part of this report. In addition a number of further questions including:  

 7.1. S2R mission and governance 

The  JU  has  been  established  in  full  compliance  with  its  regulation  and  there  is  sufficient 
evidence that the JU is totally committed to the realisation of the objectives set up by Article 2. 

We have strong indications that during the recent independent operations of the JU (less than a 
year), the management have been able to catch up with most of the initial delays in fulfilling all 
the  fundamental  tasks  as  set  up  in  Article  2  of  Annex  1.  The  membership  of  the  JU  has  been 
constituted in accordance with the rules set up in Article 3 and 4 of this same Annex and, as far 
as we can tell, all the functioning principles as set up in the other chapters have been respected. 
The management structure and procedures are clear and well documented and perfectly aligned 
with the regulation as far as we have been able to appreciate. The  roles and responsibilities of 
the  Executive  Director  and  staff  are  well  documented  and  clear  and  the  working  programme 
(annual and multiannual)  in place. Although  the  structure of some of the other bodies is clear 
there is some improvements in the processes as set out later in this section. The application of 
the H2020 framework is treated in the chapter on coherence.  

The S2R JU states that its task is to prioritise the  research and innovation activities set out  in 
the  Master  Plan  throughout  and  beyond  the  lifetime  of  the  Joint  Undertaking,  taking  into 
account the following:  

  Improved  services  for  users  and  customer  quality,  reduced  life-cycle  system  costs, 
simplified business processes and enhanced interoperability,  

 Business benefits in terms of market uptake in Europe and globally,  

 Available resources,  

 Proportionality, feasibility and acceptability,  

 Potential for accelerated deployment,  

 Value-added of action at EU level,  

  Link  to  on-going  research  and  innovation  activities,  in  particular  to  projects  funded 
under previous EU Research Programmes and at MS level, and  

 Potential synergies with other sectors.  

7.1.1 Evaluation of the current structure and management  

Among the responders to the Web  enquiry launched by the evaluation team, about 75% were 
able to answer the question whether the present JU organisation and management was fit-for-
purpose  in  terms  of  organisation,  operational  efficiency  and  effective  implementation.  Two 
thirds of them declared that they were satisfied, a third of  them said that some improvements 

 
 
might have to be brought and nobody felt that  the current organisation and management was 
not fit for purpose. 

Is the S2R structure fit-for-purpose? 
(% respondants) 

24 

23 

29 

18 

6 

40
30
20
10
0

Figure 20. Opinion of the stakeholders on the S2Rstructure from the Internet survey 

Based on interviews with  stakeholders and the JU management  it  is clear that there are some 
weaknesses,  but  most  are  due  to  S2R  being  in  its  early  stages  of  management  maturity.  The 
extremely  lengthy  procedure  for  the  nomination  of  the  Executive  Director  (who  took  office 
almost two years after the creation of the JU), and of the head of the program office to a lesser 
extent,  left  the  JU  without  solid  strategic  and  technical  management  for  a  long  period.  Any 
impact  on  the  future  programme’s  results  or  resulting  difficulties  encountered  in  the  technical 
coordination of the various IP during this transition period cannot be measured at this stage22. 

Steps  are  being  taken  by  the  management  to  addressed  the  above  in  terms  of  management 
processes,  within  the  limits  of  the  budget,  and  progress  has  been  recognised  by  direct  S2R 
members  and  those  outside  of  the  JU  (validated  by  interviews).  The  occasion  of  the  present 
revision  of  the  MAAP  is  the  opportunity  to  address  this.  Further  details  on  the  administrative 
burden are given later in the report. 

It  is  the  experts’  opinion  from  their  observations  and  discussions  with  stakeholders  and  the 
management  that  reflections  should  be  launched  for  more  fundamental  changes  to  be 
introduced in the scope, organisation and processes for an eventual S2R-2 to be able to function 
more efficiently.  

The following section sets the key areas for this reflection. 

1 Complexity of processes  

The  main  criticism  is  with  the  complexity  of  the  technical  management,  linked  with  the 
organisation of  the work  in a myriad  of  projects, each  strictly  following  the  management  rules 
defined  in  the  H2020  regulation.  This  complexity  is  well  represented  by  the  figure  below, 
explaining  the  relations  between  the  JU  management,  the  IP  steering  committees  and  the 
coordinators  of  each  and  every  project  or  action  and  one  can  see  that  the  process  cannot  be 
considered to be lean. 

22 Remarks made in particular by the SRG chairman. 

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

Figure  19.  Illustration  of  complexity  of  management  roles  (S2R  governance  and  process 
handbook) 

Suggestions for addressing this are made in the conclusions and recommendations and a project 
management optimisation process needs to be launched as soon as possible to ensure effective 
project management and resource allocation. 

7.1.2 Involvement of all actors in the value chain 

The  JU  membership  by  itself  is  overall  considered  to  relatively  well  represent  the  whole  value 
chain of main railway transport actors with the significant exception of urban rail operators (and 
see  below  section  on  AMs).  It  should  also  be  noted  that  it  is  somewhat  weak  in  operational 
aspects. This is best reflected in certain IPs (IP4 in particular) and in view of the demonstration 
and implementation phases, but this relative weakness is deemed to be compensated by open 
calls to proposals.  

The  participation  of  private  industry  members  from  outside  of  the  traditional  rail  sector  is 
welcomed and needs to be increased.  An  example  can be noted in the participation diagrams, 
with  the  providers  of  aviation  technologies  (composite  structures  in  IP1,  ticketing  in  IP4  etc.). 
This  is  seen  as  positive  although  it  does  not  compensate  for  not  having  some  key  rail  players 
within the JU. 

In addition to the main economic actors, some academic institutions, research bodies and SME 
are themselves members of AM consortia. Therefore, the experts believe that the creation of the 
JU  has  achieved  the  expected  levels  of  SME  and  research  participation  and  the  results  of  the 
first  open  calls  by  the  S2R  JU  are  encouraging.  That  said  this  aspect  should  be  followed  with 
attention  by  the  JU  management  and  all  members  of  IP  steering  committees  (and  the  States 
Representative  Group),  who  should  directly  encourage  and  help  the  creation  of  consortia 
involving as many SME as possible to answer the open calls that they launched. 

It is still to early to fully assess the way in which grants attributed as a result of open calls will 
result  in  a  fully  satisfactory  balance  of  the  participation  and  even  further  improve  the  level  of 
participation of players outside the traditional rail sector. However, the second open calls have 
resulted  in  a  better  level  of  responses,  which  is  seen  as  promising.  This  rather  positive 
assessment is done with respect to the presently very technology oriented innovation program. 
A  possible  second  phase  of  the  JU,  which  should  be  more  customer  focussed,  would  mean  a 
necessary enlargement of the operating companies’ representation.  

Role/Interaction IP/CCA SteeCoand interactions with Actions•Ensuring continuity/synchronicity of Actions to the IP/CCA and in relation to other IP and CCA. •Ensuring Actions contribution to the realisation of the MAAP. •Reporting to the S2R ED on the basis of the KPIs developed under Actions activities.•Actions Coordinatorsmay attend the SteeComeetings as observerwith the agreement of the ED and invitation by the Chairperson. •IP/CCA Coordinators/IP/CCA SteCochairmen cooperate with Actions  coordinator to foster/promote synergies between TDs and CCA Area, different Activities of other IPs and CCA, H2020 1st call projects, etc. Role of the Coordinator•Central Contact Point for the S2R JU.•Administers the S2R financial funding.•Reviews the reports to verify consistency.•Monitors the compliance under the GA.Role of S2R JU’s Programme Manager•Ensuringwiththe IP/CCA SteCothe fullfilmentof the Master Plan•Central Contact Point for Actions.•Supervise Actions and thefulfilment of contractual obligations •Check, deliverables, periodic reports, perform on-site reviews, etc.•Check financial statements.Role of beneficiaries•Carry out the workas identified in the Annex 1.•Provide all data (financial and technical) requested by the S2R JU.•Inform the S2R JU of any event that might affect the implementation.IP/CCA SteeCoActionsS2RMain interactions & roles with Actions/projects 
 
 
However, an unforeseen side effect on the participation of SME has occurred due the adoption of 
H2020 rules. The initial intention was to grant SMEs direct and easier access to the programme 
and a facility to propose their innovative solutions out of any consortium put together by larger 
players.  It  has  now  come  to  light  that  this  also  means  that  they  have  to  invest  time  and 
resources in the preparation of responses to calls. Previously support for this could be provided 
by  larger  organisations,  which  are  now  members  of  S2R  and  who  are  not  authorised  to 
participate  in  answers  to  open  calls.  This  creates  a  barrier  for  some  high  potential  SMEs  to 
participate  in  the  open  calls  and  may  also  reduce  the  quality  of  the  results  of  the  calls, 
compromising innovation.  

It  seems  that  in  the  case of  the  manufacturing  sector  such  support  can  in  some  cases  still  be 
provided by UNIFE, but this is not seen as being efficient for fostering SME participation (as the 
support  that  would  be  provided  by  national  organisations).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  Railenium  in 
France) the national organisation that has been created to support SME participation in national 
rail research became itself an associate member of S2R, possibly therefore jeopardising its own 
effectiveness in supporting national SME in their tentative to become partners of S2R. 

In terms of the selection of AMs the experts feel that there could be some improvements in the 
long-term. Several S2R members noted to us that the outcome of the process has not filled all 
gaps  in  technical  knowledge  and  expertise23.  For  example,  there  were  applications  from  some 
major railway  undertakings and infra managers,  which would have enlarged the national basis 
of railway operators’ representation in the JU and would have brought significant added value in 
terms  of  implementation  of  the  results  in  demonstration  activities.  These  gaps  have  been 
mentioned  previously  in  relation  to the  IPs  and  the  transfer  of  knowledge  from  the  lighthouse 
projects into the IPs and technical demonstrators.  

Responses  are  further  documented  in  the  interviews  and  from  the  two  questionnaires.  There 
were  quite  strong  opinions  on  this  noted  by  the  EU  stakeholder  respondents.Specifically  29% 
strongly disagreed, 20% partly agreed but  would like  to see changes and 26% agreed or fully 
agreed  (25%  did  not  feel  they  could  comment)  that  the  process  for  selecting  AMs  was 
sufficiently  open  and  non-discriminatory,  while  49%  felt  that  it  was.  This  was  considered  a 
rather  high  level  of  dissatisfaction  compared  to  the  majority  of  responses  by  this  group  (who 
were predominantly those already associated in some way with S2R – nearly 60% of the total). 

Some  choices  of  AM  have  excluded organisations  that  were  instrumental  in  the  elaboration  of 
some of the initial proposals. It is for example the case for a company that was involved in the 
creation of IP3, and was only retained for a participation of secondary importance in IP2. This is 
considered  as  being  due  to  the  imperfect  evaluation  process,  as  mentioned  earlier.  These 
companies will obviously be able to participate in open calls (e.g. for demonstration activities in 
the part of the rejected major operators), but unfortunately not in cases where they may have 
been retained as associate members and accepted into IPs where their role may be useful but 
marginal compared to the value of their expertise to other IPs via their open calls.  

Other  examples  of  this  partial  failure  of  the  selection  process  to  correctly  complement  the  JU 
membership are given further down in paragraph 6.4, they concern the participation in IP4 and 
IP5. 

Several  consortia  were  also  accepted  as  associate  members,  but  with  an  extremely  limited 
amount of time and budget allocation. This presents the risk that they will not be able to make 
significant  contributions  to  or  add  little  value  in  terms  of  innovation.  For  example  several 
members  of  the  railway  operating  community  in  the  EUROC  consortium  could  have  brought 
more value if their operating expertise was used to support bodies of the JU without becoming 
members.  Another  similar  example  is  the  Railenium  Swi'TRACK'EN  consortium,  gathering 
several universities and  laboratories,  which  may have  been better suited to contribute to their 

23 Board minutes 

42 

 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

services for innovation in railways by answering open calls. However all these “small” consortia 
members are now no longer be able to answer open calls.  

In  the  case  of  the  two  selected  major  railway  undertakings  (DB  AG  and  SNCF),  their 
programmes of work mix their participation as innovation leaders (which should be the essential 
activity of a JU member), with support activities (that might have been simply exerted through 
participation  in  some  JU  support  bodies)  and  offers  for  demonstration  that  might  have  been 
made in answer to open calls. 

It should be noted that the associated membership process or selection did not strengthen the 
Eastern Europe representation, nor compensate for the absence of any urban operator, but this 
was due to weaknesses in their applications, rather than any other reason. 

This  selection  of  associate  members  was  also  identified  as  an  area  where  there  were  some 
levels  of  dissatisfaction  from  stakeholders  as  shown  by  the  answers  to  this  question  in  the 
expert’s Internet questionnaire (see Figure 21 below).  

In your view, was the call for the selection of associated 
members to the S2R JU was conducted in an open, 
transparent and non-discriminatory manner?  

I do not feel able to comment

I do not agree

Yes

Definitely

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Figure 21 Number stakeholders answering openness question 

It is therefore suggested that  a process  for  selection  of members, more directly aiming at the 
completion of the expertise of the JU membership and at a better geographical balance, should 
be followed for a possible second projected call for associate membership. However, bearing in 
mind  the  limited  remaining  7  M€ budget.  This  budget  should  not  be  dispersed  between  too 
many  new  members  and  the  idea  of  the  creation  of  a  single  consortium  might  be  considered, 
gathering a small number of participants preselected by the JU Board and invited for discussion 
and  negotiation.  Ways  should  also  be  found  to  allow  by  exception  some  small  associate 
members to answer open calls for proposals in their best field of expertise (possibly limiting this 
right to IPs in which they are not involved as AM).  

For  a  possible  second  phase  of  the  JU,  it  is  suggested  that  there  is  a  deeper reflection  on the 
distinctions  between  founding  and  associate  members  and  that  the  composition  of  the  JU 
membership  should  be  better  and  more  strictly  aimed  at  achieving  leadership  in  innovation, 
possibly on an IP by IP basis and/or for a duration limited to the duration of the IP in which they 
are involved. The experience of other transport JUs such as SESAR and Clean Sky 2 where they 
have created some partnership arrangements could be transferred. A corresponding increase in 
the  proportion  of  the  budget  allocated  to  open  calls  (e.g.  50%  for  members  and  50%  for 
“beneficiaries” rather than 70/30) would offer more flexibility in the choice of partners for either 
the development of advance solutions or demonstration activities. 

7.1.3 Involvement of other stakeholders 

Several  bodies  of  the  JU  allow  for  the  representation  of  other  stakeholders,  standardisation 
organisations or safety authorities, academia and research organisations, users associations etc.  

 
 
 
Two  supporting  bodies  have  been  set  up  to  help  advise  the  Executive  Director.  These  are 
namely: 

 

 

The  Scientific  Committee  (SC)  (12  co-opted  members  from  academia  and  research 
bodies)  advises  on  the  scientific  and  technological  priorities  to  be  addressed  in  the 
Annual Work Plans (AWPs) 

The  States  Representatives  Group  (SRG),  representing  all  EU  Member  States  and 
countries  associated  with  the  Horizon  2020  Framework  Programme.  This  group  offers 
opinions  on  the  strategic  orientations  of  the  JU  and  on  the  links  between  Shift2Rail 
activities and relevant national or regional research and innovation programmes and can 
help  suggest  potential  organisations  from  their  respective  countries that  have  relevant 
expertise for responding to open calls. However it was noticed that much depended on 
the  dynamism  of  the  chair  of  this  group  to  motivate  the  state  representatives  to  fully 
engage  with  S2R.  The  members  are  coming  from  all  kind  of  organisations:  national 
administrations,  consultants,  universities,  incumbent  railway  operators,  infrastructure 
managers etc. 

These  two  committees  are  asked  to  give  opinions  “ex  post”  and  both  chairmen  have  raised 
concerns during the evaluation that they are always consulted at the end of the decision-making 
process,  rather  than  being  given  the  opportunity  to  provide  inputs  earlier  on  in  the  project 
development. The value of this input earlier rather than later is considered to be high, and there 
is  potential  for  this  to  occur  without  major  intervention.  It  demonstrates  a  shortcoming 
described earlier in this section and the efforts required to put robust processes in place (which 
the JU management is currently doing).  

Two other bodies provide support to the technical management: 

 

 

The  User  Requirements  Working  Group(s)  is  composed  of  S2R  JU  members  and  non-
members  to  assist  the  JU  in  ensuring  that  technical  solutions  developed  within  S2R 
meet the specific needs of all relevant end users. 

The  Implementation  and  Deployment  Working  Group(s)  is  composed  of  S2R  JU 
members and non-members to test the operational reliability of the results of Shift2Rail 
and  thereby  contribute  to  a  more  rapid  uptake  and  large-scale  deployment  of  the 
solutions developed through the Shift2Rail activities. 

These working groups are, for the time being, are clustered into a single one (URID-WG). There 
is a list of 22 organisations that may nominate members of this URID-WG, among which 5 have 
not yet delegated any representative. This membership includes representative organisations of 
all  categories  of  stakeholders.  The  effective  role  of  this  group  does  not  appear  as  fully  clear. 
There  might  be  doubts  about  it  being  anything  else  for  the  time  being  that  a  vector  for 
dissemination  of  information.  It  is  typical  in  this  respect  that  no  mention  of  it  has  ever  been 
made in the interviews of the IP and CCA leaders. 

An ad-hoc group for the revision of the MAAP has also been created and it is called TIGER Team 
MAAP.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  Commission  has  the  Transport  Advisory  Group  (TAG) 
that is set up to give overall transport research guidance but that currently has not been asked 
to give input into the strategic rail research agenda. 

7.1.4 Whole System approach 

As explained in  the general introduction  to  the  present report, no progress in the efficiency of 
the railway transportation system can be made without a strong system approach to deal with 
all interfaces between the subsystems and between the railway system and the “outside world”. 

44 

 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

As far as the group of experts has been able to evaluate, there is a good system management 
at IP level (e.g. in IP4, of which the scope is transversal to all sub-systems and is not even only 
railway  specific  as  it  encompasses  other  modes  of  transportation).  However  the  responses  to 
the  Internet  questionnaire  asking  if  the  technical  management  of  the  5  innovation  programs 
works effectively as a coordinated system indicated that people would like to see some changes 
and improvements (16 responded that they either felt it did not or could be improved while 13 
were satisfied although only one answered that it was definitely effective).  

Participation by the experts as observers in a meeting of the System Integration Working Group 
(SIWG),  gathering  the  JU  program  management,  the  IP  and  CCA  steering  committees  and 
members  of  the  SC,  has  showed  a  good  (but  very  large!)  team  of  railway  engineers  and 
projects managers discussing many and various medium term management issues. 

In  the  expert’s  opinion  there  is  a  lack  of  railway  system-wide  competence  at  the  JU 
management  level  (this  is  not  a  reflection  on  the  management  competence  but  technical 
expertise),  which  is  not  compensated  by  the  existence  of  the  SIWG.  It  is  also  noted  that  the 
SWIG  is  a  large  group  to  manage.  It  is  composed  of  different  types  of  specialists  from  the 
various  IP  steering  committees,  but  just  because  it  is  made  up  of  a  lot  of  experts,  does  not 
automatically result in high railway system wide engineering expertise. 

There  is  certainly  a  need  to  streamline  and  reinforce  the  overall  technical  management  of  the 
JU. The creation of the TIGER team for the revision of the MAAP can be seen as a first step in 
this direction but an audit of its membership (also very large for such an ad hoc group) by the 
Governing  Board  might  be  useful  to  determine  its  ability  to  ensure  a  real  railway  system 
management leadership. 

The  scientific  committee  also  has  concerns  about  its  insufficient  involvement  generally  and  in 
particular  in  the  MAAP  revision.  As  already  mentioned,  a  number  of  stakeholders  answered  to 
the  Internet  questionnaire  that  the  JU  is  still  functioning  as  a  ‘closed  shop’24.  Having  the 
outcome of the work of the team reviewing the MAAP validated only at JU level will raise doubts 
about  the  legitimacy  of  the  decisions.    A  wider  stakeholder  consultation  would  show  that  S2R 
has the intention to be inclusive25 and be more representational of the whole railway sector, in 
line with S2R managing all rail research. The historic legacy of S2R as an exclusive ‘club’ is still 
prevalent despite efforts to the contrary so every opportunity should be taken to address this. 
As  noted  that  in  other  informal  interviews  (such  as  with  members  of  the  Transport  Advisory 
Group) scientific expertise despite being available is not always used.  

It  is  worth  mentioning  here  a  possible  future  role  for  ERRAC.  In  other  sectors,  it  has  been 
shown that the ETPs can  continue to  play a useful role in providing JU with strategic guidance 
(e.g. in the aviation sector). The Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) 
is  an  advisory  body  to  Clean  Sky  and  in  the  past  has  assisted  it  to  develop  and  maintain  a 
Strategic Research Agenda (SRA. It has also played a role in helping to bring in SMEs26 from EU 
Member  States  to  take  part  in  the  JU  led  projects27.  Experience  from  ACARE  in  its  role  could 
have been transferred to S2R. Its success was achieved after an initial period where it needed 
adapt  its  working  processes  and  early  on  experienced  similar  challenges  as  those  being 
experienced  currently  by  S2R,  in  adapting  its  processes  to  find  the  most  productive  ways  of 
working.  Indeed  the  expert  team  noticed  that  there  is  a  gap  in  the  transfer of  knowledge  and 
experience  in  the  management  aspects  (not  content)  of  transport  related  JUs  that  could  help 
new JUs to avoid pitfalls.  

24  

It is difficult to estimate if this is a historical reaction or the present day reality as the experts are aware  of significant 
efforts made by the JU management to address this. 

25   Positive steps have been taken by the JU management, who is engaged in a process of discussion of this revision of 

the MAAP with the representative organisations of the sector. 

26   Based on interview with ACARE previous Chair at CS1 final event. 

27   This observation is based on an interview with the ex ACARE chair. 

 
 
                                                
It  is  therefore  suggested  that  although  the  roles  of  the  different  bodies  and  the  management 
structure  may  be  clear,  there  are  improvements  to  the  actual  implementation  and  processes 
themselves. This is more fully developed in the section with recommendations.  

7.1.5 Coordination of stakeholders along the value chain and development 
of a vision on the medium and long term. 

All in all, and despite a certain number of weaknesses (which the new management is seriously 
tackling)  with  the  full  deployment  of  the  JU  work  program  and  the  strengthening  of  its 
management team, the creation of the S2R JU will certainly contribute to a broader and better-
coordinated participation of stakeholders along the full rail value chain. There are no doubts that 
compared  to  the  previous  situation,  there  is  better  continuity  in  project  planning  and,  as  a 
consequence, in the coordinated participation of all stakeholders. 

The technical management of the JU is not able, nor is it its role to develop by itself a vision of 
the  future  of  the  European  railways  in  a  changing  economical  and  societal  environment. 
However there is a need to have a robust structure and processes in place to ensure that there 
is a broad and diverse approach to mid and long term visioning, or there is a risk that the IPs’ 
results will be satisfactory but not future looking. The scientific committee inputs are currently 
limited to a purely reactive role and a suggestion is made to enlarge its membership to include 
non-railway specialists, to broaden its perspective and bring in new ideas. 

Initial  confusion  coming  from  positions  taken  by  some  market  actors  has  been  resolved  after 
discussion  with  the  JU  management:  that  S2R  is  in  charge  of  managing  railway  focused 
collaborative  European  research,  not  of  developing  the  strategic  agenda  for  future  railway 
research, neither to propose the scope of work for a possible S2R second phase. 

ERRAC remains the European technology platform for rail,  in charge of looking at the future of 
all  rail  research.  Its  membership  has  the  potential  to  gather  a  larger  spectrum  of  interested 
parties  than  that  which  S2R  can  do  from  its  own  membership  or  its  present  supporting 
committees. Furthermore, the Board of the JU, of which the members other than the Union are 
only  the  main  industry  participants  in  the  present  research  program,  has  no  legitimacy  to 
supervise the development of any strategic research agenda for the future. Therefore there is a 
clear  role  for  ERRAC  in  this  context,  but one  that  it  is  not  well  positioned to deliver  currently. 
The  absence  of  any  organised  connection  with  ERRAC  remains  one  of  the  most  surprising 
findings of this evaluation. 

The JU itself will however of course contribute through its reports and remarks. 

There would be therefore a need to re-organise and re-activate ERRAC and to establish strong 
links between it and the following S2R bodies: 

- 

- 

a strengthened and streamlined  JU  technical management group (i.e. more or less the 
so-called “TIGER Team” presently in charge of the MAAP revision; 

a  scientific  committee  enlarged  to  other  scientists  than  railway  engineering  specialists 
(economists, sociologists, geographers etc.); 

- 

the States Representatives Group (SRG). 

It is also suggested that the groups mentioned here above (TIGER, SC, SRG) might intervene so 
as to facilitate coherency  and  avoid redundant  works.  The  Tiger group might be considered  as 
the  railway-engineering  working  party  of  ERRAC  and  the  membership  of  the  SC  and  SRG  be 
aligned respectively with the  one of the corresponding two permanent advisory groups (PAGs) 
of ERRAC.  

46 

 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

The present chairman of ERRAC is a member of the S2R Governing Board and this membership, 
at  least  as  an  observer,  might  be  institutionalised.  However  for  the  elaboration  of  the  future 
European  strategic  agenda,  which  would  inter  alia  serve  as  a  basis  for  a  possible  S2R2  work 
plan, he should report to the ERRAC steering committee and plenary assembly. 

This type of functioning has already de facto started in an embryonic form, with the revision of 
the MAAP of S2R going already beyond a simple revision of the technical program of the present 
JU (and incidentally the ERRAC chairman being a member of the TIGER group). The draft of the 
revised  MAAP  in  its  present  state  indeed  starts  with  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  need  for 
innovation in railways for the future and it will deliver the S2R vision of what might be European 
railways of the future. But this analysis, only conducted by the JU members, will quickly find its 
limits. 

What the revision of the MAAP can deliver are obviously conclusions on the gaps to be filled in 
the present S2R program, noticeably concerning demonstration activities, which for the moment 
appear as not yet being clearly planned. For the steps to follow, including implementation of the 
results of the present program and their funding mechanisms, as well as possible extension of 
scope  to  innovation  in  other  railway  subsystems  than  the  present  ones  (operations, 
communication, maintenance…), the findings of the analysis should be transferred to ERRAC. 

7.1 6 Contractual arrangements between partners 

The  contractual  arrangements  between  partners  appear  to  be  effective  as  far  as  it  has  been 
possible to appreciate by the group of evaluation experts. There has been no difficulty reported 
in  terms  of  allocation  of  responsibilities  between  the  JU  members  involved  in  the  different  IP 
and there is obviously a strong commitment of all members on the long term.  

7.1.7 Transparency and communication to all interested parties 

To  assist  in  the  transparency  of  the  JU  a  communication  strategy  has  been  The  S2R  JU 
communication  is  designed  to  take  a  new  approach  to  taking  a  “users  first  in  mobility  as  a 
service”  via  a  number of channels  such  as  the  Internet,  newsletters,  events and  social  media. 
Two main communication objectives are identified:  

1. Raising S2R JU profile  

2  Highlighting  the  Innovation  Programmes  technology  potential  and  Project  Results  – 
Project Dissemination 

The main target audience is been identified as: 

  Scientific Community, i.e. Universities, Research Centres, etc.  

  Other agencies (ERA, GSA, ESA, FCH, other JUs, etc.)  

 

European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC)  

  Other policy makers:  

 

 

International,  EU  level,  Member  States,  regional  and  municipal  authorities,  councillors 
and scientific attachés of Permanent Representations to the EU  

International, European and National environmental & energy and mobility associations, 
NGOs, etc.  

  General public, potential applicants and the media  

 
 
S2R  and  its  associated  projects  have  websites  as  the  main  portal  for  communications.  In 
addition, S2R has an active Twitter feed (mainly with tweets from the Executive Director) with 
1.280 followers and at least one tweet on average a day.  

It  also  has  an  international  communications  strategy,  which  includes  attending  a  number  of 
international  events  as  speaker  (at  least  6  over  the  period  of  2017)  or  as  participant.  Events 
include  more  research-focused  events  such  as  the  Transport  Research  Arena  (TRA)  and  major 
rail exhibitions (INNOTRANS).  

Other  outreach  activities  include  collaboration  with  the  S2R  state  Representative  Groups  and 
their  national  ministries.  In  2017  several  “regional  info-days”  were  organised  and  hosted  by 
different  local  ministries  and  this  will  be  continued  for  the  upcoming  calls  in  2018  as  this 
experience  has  produced  positive  results  in  terms  of  increased  knowledge  about  the  JU  and 
responses  to  the  open  calls.  It  can  therefore  be  concluded  that  S2R  is  making  good  use  of 
modern  and  tradition  communication  tools  to  outward  facing  and  communicate  clearly  and 
frequently with interested parties. 

All TJUs have set up a variety of dissemination tools and activities, ranging from demonstrators, 
scientific publications,  event  organizations,  newsletters  and  the  use  of  social media.  S2R is  no 
different  –  although  it  is  not  easy  to  obtain  evidence  it  is  the  experts  opinion  that  the 
communication and dissemination activities (such as they are currently) reaches out to its own 
community  and  to  some  extent  the  wider  transport  community.  50%  of  the  EU  stakeholder 
questionnaire respondents said the web site provided easy and effective access to the ‘public’. It 
could  be  worth  considering  extending  this  to  the  general  public  especially  rail  users  once  the 
demonstration  levels  are  reached.    It  is  also  noted  that  reporting  on  the  amount  of 
dissemination  and  the  reach  /  impact  of  dissemination  activities  is  not  consistent  across  the 
TJUs.  

7.2. Operational effectiveness 

The  emphasis  put  by  the  Commission  White  Paper  on  a  Roadmap  to  a  Single  European 
Transport Area (2011) on the need to create a Single European Railway Area has been exposed 
in paragraph 3.1.1. 

The  S2R  JU  Master  Plan  sets  therefore  as  one  of  the  fundamental  objective  for  the  JU  “To 
achieve the Single European Railway Area through the removal of remaining technical obstacles 
holding  back  the  rail  sector  in  terms  of  interoperability  and  through  the  transition  to  a  more 
integrated,  efficient  and  safe  EU  railway  market,  guaranteeing  the  proper  interoperability  of 
technical solutions”.  

The regulation on the European Union Agency for railways28 (ERA) states in its article 2 that the 
objective  of  the  Agency  shall  be:  ‘to  contribute  to  the  further  development  and  effective 
functioning  of  a  single  European  railway  area  without  frontiers’.  This  is  why  the  regulation 
establishing  the  S2R  JU  gives  in  its  article  12  the  remit  to  the  ERA  to  propose  possible 
amendments to the S2R Master Plan and to the annual work plans, in particular to ensure that 
research needs relating to the realisation of the Single European Railway Area are covered.  

The close relationship between ERA  and the S2R JU as exposed in paragraph 3.3.2 appears as 
being  in  continuity  with  its  participation  in  the  management  of  former  FP7 projects  (e.g.  Trio-
train  projects)  that  were  aiming  at  similar  objectives.  These  objectives  for  contribution  to  the 
development  of  a  Single  European  Railway  Area  are  detailed  IP  per  IP  in  the  table  of  the 
paragraph  3.2.3  of  the  present  report.  They  include  improve  standardisation,  improved  safety 

28 Regulation 2016/796 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 

48 

 
 
 
                                                
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

and  interoperability,  closure  of  open  points  in  TSI  or  developing  methods  for  certification  by 
simulation etc.  

There is a widespread  opinion  among the stakeholders and the participants to the programme 
that the on going works will deliver these expected results in terms of construction of the SERA.  

The  stability  of  the  organisation  provided  by  the  creation  of  the  JU  and  the  consecutive 
possibility of medium and long term planning is seen as a significant improvement as compared 
to the  previous  situation. It  will,  inter  alia,  allow  for  the  continuous  identification  of the  needs 
for  standardisation  of  solutions  for  the  closure  of  newly  identified  open  points  (the  so-called 
“hidden  open  points”),  all  along  the  process  of  recurrent  revision  of  TSI  and  elimination  of 
redundant national technical rules. 

A  danger  to  avoid  would  be  to  forget  the  urban  rail  issues  and  in  particular  the  need  for 
seamless  interfaces  between  main  lines  and  urban  systems  from  the  point  of  view  of 
infrastructures  and  control-command  systems,  as  the  SERA  and  therefore  the  scope  of 
competence  of  the  ERA  does  not  encompass  these  urban  transport  systems.  This  has  already 
been mentioned in paragraph 3.3.7. 

7.2.1  Expected  results  and  contribution  of  the  lighthouse  projects 
to the innovation programs of S2R 

Four  so-called  “lighthouse”  projects  were  launched  before  the  formal  creation  of  the  JU,  to 
anticipate  the  expected  work  topics  of  the  S2R  innovation  programs.  Although  their  contents 
were  inspired  by  the  JU  preliminary  strategic  work-plan,  these  projects  were  subjects  to  calls 
launched by the EC under H2020 and they have all been granted to consortia independent from 
the JU. All four projects started operating in May 2015 and they are briefly described hereunder. 
Discussions took place after the JU received its financial autonomy in May 2016 to find ways in 
which  these  projects  might  be  put  under  the  JU  management  as  foreseen  by  the  JU.  At  the 
present  time  a  solution  to  this  has  not  been  found  as  there  are  significant  legal  issues 
preventing the management to be transferred from the EC to the JU. Therefore it was decided 
that only a technical coordination by the JU could be considered. The focus of the evaluation on 
this  aspect  has  thus  been  on  the  integration  of  the  Lighthouse  Projects  in  the  S2R  work 
programme. 

In  terms  of  budget,  the  Article  3  of  the  S2R  JU  regulation  states  that  the  maximum  Union 
contribution to the S2R initiative would be 450 M€, of which a 398 M€ maximum contribution to 
the  S2R  JU  and  52  M€  was  earmarked  under  the  Horizon  2020  Transport  Work  Programme 
2014-2015. The so-called lighthouse  projects to which  this budget  of  52 M€ has been granted 
are therefore explicitly part of the initiative, although they are managed independently from the 
S2R  JU  by  DG  MOVE  and  RTD.  The  projects  therefore  cannot  be  used  to  check  the  S2R  JU's 
processes on the management  of  these projects but  they are  still  considered very relevant for 
the  evaluation  of  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  JU  in  terms  of  topic  definition  and  cross 
project integration. Moreover, there is still some input from the JU on the technical coordination 
that can be examined in terms of collaboration between the projects technical leaders and the 
steering  committees  of  the  S2R  IP.  The  main  issue  at  stake  is  the  extent  to  which  the 
deliverables of these projects will contribute to the achievement of the S2R objectives. 

In  fact,  given  that  the  four  projects  have  all  passed  their  mid-term  period  (two  of  them  will 
finish their work in 2017, the two others in April 2018), only collaboration between the projects 
technical leaders and the steering committees of the S2R IP can be reasonably considered.  The 
main issue at stake is whether the deliveries of these projects will be able to contribute to the 
achievement of  the S2R objectives.  How  this will occur will be very different from  a project to 
another as can be found in the following section. 

 
 
 
Roll2Rail (coordinated by UNIFE)- IP1 

Duration 30 months (ends in October 2017), 31 partners, budget 16 M€ 

Roll2Rail  is  setting  the  foundation  for  many  of  the  technologies  that  will  be  continued  within 
Shift2Rail’s IP1 (Cost-efficient and reliable trains, including high capacity trains and high-speed 
trains).  Roll2Rail  aims  to develop  key  technologies that  will  overcome  hurdles  to innovation  in 
rolling stock development and forms part  of  a longer-term strategy  to revolutionise  the rolling 
stock of the future.  

In the case of Roll2Rail, all the members are members of IP1 and the technical leader is also the 
same (CAF). The scopes are also perfectly coherent. Due to this is therefore logical to consider 
that the R2R project and the technical operations of the IP1 started on one and the same date. 
A particular mention is to be made of the preparatory research topic on harmonisation of brake 
system requirements, which is seen as of significant importance for the creation of the SERA. 

In2Rail (coordinated by Network Rail)-IP2/IP3 

Duration: 36 months (ends in April 2018), 54 partners, budget 18 M€ 

In2rail sets the foundation for a resilient, consistent, cost-efficient, high capacity European rail 
network.  In2Rail  will  feed  into  the  Shift2Rail  IP2  (Advanced  Traffic  Management  &  Control 
Systems)  and  IP3  (Cost  Efficient  and  Reliable  High  Capacity  Infrastructure)  to  deliver  smart 
infrastructure,  intelligent  mobility  management,  and  improved  rail  power  supply  and  energy 
management. 

The project is considered to be progressing well. The coordinator of the project is the same as 
the technical leader of IP3. It is therefore expected that this will ensure that there should be an 
effective transfer of results and the most significant contributions to the continued work in IP3. 
An  added  benefit  within  In2Rail  is  that  a  number  of  the  Work  Package  leaders  are  also  the 
elected Technology Demonstrator Leaders within S2R so this helps with continuity and transfer 
of knowledge. 

There are however a number of non-S2R members in In2Rail consortium and there is a risk that 
some of the expertise could be lost at the end of project as these members will not be able to 
continue  under  the  present  structure.   Network  Rail  (IP  Leader)  is  looking  to  manage  this  risk 
through  enlisting  a  number  of  these  partners  as  Linked  Third  Parties  within  S2R  projects. 
Another other option being considered is that a couple of partners would contribute to an Open 
Call consortia. A clear strategy will have to be elaborated by the JU management in this respect 

IT2Rail (coordinated by UNIFE)-IP4 

Duration: 30 months (ends in November 2017), 27 partners, budget 12 M€ 

IT2Rail is considered to be the first step towards the long term Shift2Rail IP4 (IT Solutions for 
Attractive  Railway  Services).  IT2Rail  will  look  to  transform  the  European  citizens’  global travel 
interactions  through  the  introduction  of  new  technologies  and  solutions  and  a  fully  integrated 
and new seamless travel experience, giving them access to a complete multi-modal travel offer, 
which connects the first and last mile to long distance journeys.  

IT2Rail  has  the  same  scope  than  IP4  and  the  same  technical  leader  and  therefore  should 
constitute  a good  start  for  it.  As  with  In2Rail there are  the  same  potential  difficulties  with  the 
transfer of results due to the fact that certain members are not the same, although the technical 
leader is the same (Thales). In the case of IT2Rail and due to the subject matter, the difficulties 
are  amplified  by  the  integrated  character  of  the  project,  of  which  the  results  cannot  be  easily 
separated into packages. 

50 

 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

Furthermore, a number of operators are members of IT2Rail, including Trenitalia and UITP, but 
they  are  not  members  of  S2R  and  moreover  there  are  no  operator  members  in  IP4  as  the 
operator members of S2R (such as SNCB and DB) are not involved in IP4. This creates not only 
a  possible problem  of  lack  of  continuity in  the  project,  but  also  highlights  the  lack  of  operator 
input  directly  into  IP4.  The  members  of  IP4  are  essentially  manufacturers  or  suppliers  of  IT 
solutions. This is probably the most typical example of a gap that should/could have been filled 
by the selection of AMs. 

IT2Rail  started  in  May  2015  whereas  IP4  started  in  September  2016.  For  the  moment  IT2Rail 
continues  on  100%  of  the  common  scope,  and  IP4  works  to  introduce  constructive  “bricks”  in 
the  system.  It  is  still  unclear  how  the  JU  will  be  able  to  compensate  for  this  discontinuity  in 
membership that could jeopardise the chances for IP4 outputs to get a good market uptake. It 
is perfectly clear that a project on ticketing and passenger information that does not involve any 
operator  will  encounter  some  problems  of  market  uptake  of  the  results.  Here  also  an  explicit 
strategy will have to be developed by the JU management in terms of issuing of open calls. 

SMART-RAIL (coordinated by TNO)- IP5 

Duration 36 months (ends in April 2018), 19 partners, budget 6 M€ 

SMART-Rail  aims  at  improving  rail  freight  services  offered  to  shippers,  focusing  on  five  main 
aspects  that  are  important  to  shippers,  namely  reliability,  lead  time,  costs,  flexibility  and 
visibility. The project focuses on innovative solutions and their implementation in the rail freight 
sector  by  testing  them  in  three  Continuous  Improvement  Tracks,  along  certain  specified  rail 
corridors.  The  outcome  of  this  project  was  expected  to  contribute  to  Shift2Rail  IP5 
(Technologies  for  Sustainable  &  Attractive  European  Rail  Freight).  (http://www.smartrail-
project.eu/).  

In  this  particular  case,  the  processes  of  selection  of  the  winning  project  and  the  process  of 
selection  of  Associated  Members  of  the  JU  lead  to  totally  different  results,  with  a  Smart-Rail 
project and a S2R IP5 that have different scopes, programs and members! 

The  contacts  are  good  but  there  will  be  little  to  be  transferred  and  there  is  no  way  to 
compensate  this  disconnection  through  open  calls.  There  is  however  a  support  provided  by 
SMART-RAIL to IP5 in terms of business analytics and KPI. 

7.2.2 Effectiveness of the calls 

The effectiveness of the call for associate membership in attracting the best possible players in 
their field of competence has been discussed at  length in preceding paragraphs of the present 
report and, despite some deficiencies that have been noted, the general composition of the JU 
membership is considered as satisfactory in terms of involvement of the best possible players in 
the railway sector. A few companies from other sectors with a high reputation in innovation are 
also  members of  the  JU  and  participate  in  particular  in  IP1  or  IP4.  There  was  also  widespread 
general  agreement  in  the  responses  to  the  Internet  questionnaire  that  the  principle  of  annual 
calls was appropriate for a sound management of the programme on the medium term. 

As already mentioned several times above,  there is a widespread opinion  in the  railway  sector 
that the JU will lead to better services to the stakeholders and addressees as compared to the 
alternative  options.  The  Internet  questionnaire  also  showed  a  good  perception  by  the 
stakeholders  of  the  services  that  will  be  provided  by  the  JU.  However  there  is  also  a  general 
agreement that more needs to be done to attract the best talent in research to S2R, with only 
just over 20% feeing that the current system definitely attracted the best.  

There  is  therefore  an  obvious  need  for  the  partnership  to  be  widened  on  the  occasion  of  the 
open calls and in particular try to attract expertise from other sectors than the railway industry. 

 
 
Figure  21:  Responses  from  the  stakeholder  Internet  questionnaire  on  attracting  the  best 
research talent to S2R 

There is however a certain danger for the JU to be considered as a « closed shop », partly due 
to  historical  reasons  that  remain  in  peoples’  minds.  This  is  necessary  to  address  and  for 
progress  and  trust  to  be  built  up,  especially  via  the  processes  for  the  selection  of  future 
innovation topics and new  partners in  view of a possible S2R-2.  The Executive  Director is also 
aware of the need to ensure transparency and openness.  

It  is  too  early  to  speak  about  the  satisfaction  of  new  beneficiaries  participating  in  projects 
resulting from open calls and having only been launched in late 2016, the survey conducted by 
the Commission however shows a generally positive judgement. 

7.2.3. Direct achievements 

It  is  too  early  to  evaluate  any  direct  achievements  of  S2R,  however  the  experts  are  able  to 
confirm  that  S2R  has  helped  to  create  continuity  and  shared  common  vision  for  rail  research 
within the railway community. It is clear that this alone will help to deliver a more coordinated 
and  seamless  rail  system.  In  addition  it  has  helped  to  build  trust  between  players  that  would 
otherwise not have the opportunity to share ideas and common interests outside a commercial 
situation.  

Nonetheless,  the  rail  supply  industry  is  still  highly  fragmented  as  local  suppliers  have  served 
many  national  rail  operators  for  many  years.  S2R  plays  an  important  role  in  bringing  these 
players  together  at  European  level,  and  thus  aligning  developments  for  achieving  the  Single 
European  Rail  Area.  Its  outputs  should  also  reduce  their  costs  and  (by  eliminating  standards 
conflicts) speed up deployment (increasing interoperability). Although it is too early to evaluate 
any  output  from  S2R  itself,  the  evaluation  of  the  progress  of  the  lighthouse  projects  indicate 
that  there  is  high  levels  of  potential  and  overall  the  combined  effect  of  lighthouse  plus  S2R 
outputs are in line with expectations.  

There is universal agreement that there is a high level of interest in rail research and that this 
should be done collectively in order to deliver the European policy objectives. The expert group 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

found  no  dissenting  voices  on  this  aspect.  Therefore  it  is  correct  to  conclude  that  S2R  is  still 
highly relevant. 

It  is  too  early  today  to  establish  if  the  technologies  will  deliver  but  from  the  initial  interviews 
(with project and IP coordinators) and responses to the questionnaire indications are that there 
is  a  strong  belief  that  the  expected  achievements,  as  they  had  been  defined  by  the  JU 
promoters,  will  also  constitute  a  strong  basis  for  the  reinforcement  of  the  positions  of  the 
European industry against its worldwide competition. 

However some gaps that have been identified might deserve corrective actions even within this 
current period. These gaps are seen as at least partly resulting from the technical structure of 
the  programme  based  on  the  system  components  of  the  interoperability  directive  (see  3.2.1), 
without  a  complete  telecommunication  sub-system  and  not  considering  urban  rail  within  the 
European rail system. 

They  include  the  absence,  except  for  control-command  purpose,  of  an  innovation  program  on 
telecommunications,  across  all  railway  subsystems  and  applicable  to  the  different  transport 
mode29.  At  the  moment  several  IPs  are  looking  in  particular  for  innovative  solutions  in  radio 
communication  (such  as  IP1,  IP2,  IP3),  with  a  risk  that  different  proprietary  solutions  may  be 
developed  in  parallel  (and  those  that  are  late  to  market  run  the  risk  of  becoming  obsolete 
before  getting  a  chance  of  any  market  uptake30).  A  unified  communication  system  based  on 
novel  IT  solutions  might  be  able  to  provide  for  the  exchange  of  all  necessary  information  at 
system  level  (notwithstanding  differences  between  urban  and  main  line  information  contents). 
In the interviews some examples were given where useful progress had been made  between a 
large  number  of  different rail  players  but  that  this work  risked  to  be duplicated  within  S2R  as 
different actors were involved. One very significant evolution of the external environment that is 
not  being  taken  into  account  by  S2R  is  the  incredibly  quick  evolution  of  the  Information 
Technologies  and  of  the  “Web  Society”  that  might  make  obsolete  any  development  of 
proprietary  solutions  by  the  railway  sector  actors  even  before  they  are  implemented.  It  is 
difficult for those in rail to also be aware  of the cutting edge developments in this fast moving 
sector  without  specialist  players  in  the  field.  The  current  structures  and processes  are  seen  to 
be well adapted to the agility required in accepting new players.  

In  the  same  domain,  there  is  serious  concern  over  bandwidth  issues,  also  been  mentioned  in 
particular  by  the  urban  rail  operators31  and  by  Member  States  representatives.  There  is  a 
current  fight  in  Europe  for  bandwidth  and  the  fact  that,  in  public  transport,  safety  is  largely 
dependant on voice transmission is not well taken into account from the point of view of urban 
operators.  The  experts  would  like  to  highlight  the  fact  that  two  different  EU  DGs  are  also  in 
charge  (the  ITS  JU  depends  obviously  from  DG  Connect),  which  further  complicates  matters. 
The Chinese example was mentioned by the urban operators as a path to follow, a specific band 
having been allocated to railways by the authorities. 

The  risk  of  seeing  ATO  solutions  being  developed  on  a  strict  ERTMS  technology  basis,  with  no 
sufficient  attention  being  paid  to  the  specific  needs  of  urban  operations.  This  fear  has  been 
expressed by UITP but does not seem to be shared by the manufacturing industry, nor by the 
ERA. This has been  already quite  a long  story of misunderstanding between the main  line  and 
the urban “sub-sectors” and the absence of experts from urban rail operators in the IP2 working 
parties  does  not  help.  This  point  should  absolutely  be  clarified  by  the  JU  with  the  support  of 
UITP. 

Some of the above are considered to be barriers to S2R being able to deliver on the European 
policy  agenda  and  achieving  interoperability  in  the  widest  understanding  of  the  term,  even 

29   A point that has been in particular highlighted  by UNIFE/UNISIG. 

30   As it has already been the case with GSM-R for ERTMS 

31   UITP 

 
 
                                                
beyond strictly regulatory  interoperability.  Urban  rail  is not in the scope of the Interoperability 
Directive,  which  in  part  is  why  urban  rail  players  were  not  interested  in  the  early  days  of 
developing S2R but their interest is now beginning to emerge as the scope of S2R widens.  

However, stakeholders who are not members of the JU, who may have previously been reactive, 
are  now  starting  to  be  pro-actively  engaged.  It  is  recognized  that  no  major  changes  in 
membership or structure can be considered for this period of S2R but the internal architecture 
of a possible S2R-2 should be adapted to be able to include a more flexible approach to market 
changes and emerging research needs. The programme of S2R is largely frozen as members are 
chosen for the duration of the programme on the basis of their participation in IP’s of which the 
content is described in full details by the Master Plan. 

The  approach  of  CleanSky2  in  terms  of  membership  could  be  considered  as  an  example  to 
follow, with members nominated for the duration of a particular project. 

Despite these few identified weaknesses in the program, our interviews indicate that the Work 
Programme is still considered to be fully relevant within the present time-scale and budget. It is 
expected to strengthen in the future. The S2R JU, as a unique tool able to gather all the actors 
of  the  sector  together  in  the  same  effort  towards  innovation,  will  certainly  be  a  strong 
contributor  to  the  Union’s  policy  priorities.  In  particular,  the  contribution  by  the  JU  to  the 
reduction of life cycle costs, increase of capacity, increase of reliability and punctuality, removal 
of  technical  obstacles  to  interoperability,  reduction  of  negative  externalities,  should  greatly 
contribute to the objectives set up in the White Paper for Transport. 

7.2.3 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 

Despite the attention of S2R to KPIs this is an area of some debate. Performance measurement 
of  organisations  has  evolved  substantially  since  the  1990s.  Essentially  developed  for  private 
companies,  KPIs  and  the  related  dashboards,  integrated  views  on  performance  and  strategy 
maps have become of widespread  use  within  projects, private and state-owned companies,  as 
well  as  on  the  level  of  governments  and  their  sub-departments.  Even  on  the  higher 
transnational EU level, for the transport domain as a whole, a so-called transport scorecard has 
been  developed32,  including  indicators,  across  transport  modes,  from  both  sources  within  and 
external to the EU institutions.  

Analysing  more  specifically  the  S2R  JUs  approach  to  KPIs,  based  on  its  recent  annual  activity 
report  (AAR  2016),  and  its  mission  and  vision,  we  need  to  distinguish  three  levels  of 
performance measurement. 

The micro-level, which essentially entails various KPIs related to project management, budget 
execution,  program-specific  KPIs  such  as  gender  participation,  SME  participation,  country 
breakdown,  etc.,  specific  to  each  JU.  In  this  sphere,  quite  some  standardization  is  already 
achieved given the need to comply with H2020 rules and definitions.  

Based  on  the  above  AAR  of  the  S2R  JU,  these  tables  with  KPIs  are  formally  mentioned  as 
annexes, but are relatively sparsely populated with data (a lot of indicators remain N/A). There 
is little accompanying information in the AAR on why the majority of KPIs is not available (lack 
of data, lack of resources, lack of reliability) or simply not applicable. Clearly, some additional 
progress is to be  achieved  here  to  have  a  more  evolutionary  and  easy-to-find  view  of  the  JUs 
performance  relative  to  their  core  activities  of  formulating,  evaluating  and  implementing 
Research and Innovation activities. Reporting of KPIs without an evolution has limited value, but 
this refinement will presumably become available as the JU develops its activities.  

32 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/scoreboard/ 

54 

 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

The  meso-level  essentially  refers  to  the  sector  or  industry  specific  competitiveness  of  rail 
transport.  All  JUs  formulate  strategic  objectives  in  their  legal  mission  and  vision  on  the 
enhancement  of 
transport 
(manufacturing/supply  chain)  industry.  Given  that  an  overarching  objective  of  the  JU  is  to 
improve  competitiveness  with  the  Far  East  competition,  KPIs,  including  international  /  global 
benchmarks  on  the  competitiveness  of  the  respective  industries,  are  relatively  under-
represented or absent all together.  

for  example,  here  of  the  EU  rail 

the  competitiveness, 

As  these  industries  (and  the  EU  in  general)  are  increasingly  under  pressure  from  a  global 
competition point of view, and given the EU’s strategy towards an industrial renaissance33, it is 
advisable  to  start  the  development  and  implementation  of  KPIs  which  are  able  to  monitor  the 
global competitiveness of the EU versus the world (and/or major competitors such as e.g. China 
and  the  US)  for  the  rail  industry.  Suggestions  of  KPIs  are  to  be  found  in  the  context  of  e.g. 
number  of  patents,  industry  export  intensities,  size  and  growth  of  manufacturing  industries, 
global market shares in exports, etc. Other KPIs might be deducted on a EU level (i.e. patents 
filed resulting from JU funded research versus the overall amount of patents filed relating to the 
air and rail transport supply chain / industry).  

Therefore,  we  recommend  to  start  a  reflection  across  the  TJUs  on  a  limited  number  of  KPIs 
relating  to  the  global  competitiveness  of  the  concerned  industries,  and  the  contribution  of  the 
TJUs towards this important strategic objective (the other alternative is to remove this objective 
from  the TJUs  missions, as it is currently  not measured  or  assessed  in a meaningful way, and 
not linked to the overall EU industrial policy).  

The  macro-level,  which  consists  of  social,  environmental  and  economic  impacts  of  the 
programs conducted. Here, the JUs currently mainly rely on both ex-ante assessments through 
ad-hoc research, results from demonstrators. For these indicators, which are linked to the core 
objectives of the JUs themselves (reduction of environmental impacts of transport, improvement 
of  resource  efficiencies,  economic  impacts,  etc.),  the  AAR  shows  different  scope  and  detail. 
Another  issue  with  macro-level  indicators  resides  in  the  causality  and  scope  of  impacts,  in 
particular  when  socio-economic  impacts  such  as  employment  and  gross  added  value 
contributions are concerned.  

In the discussion of the ‘multi-level’ nature of KPIs, and the related causality issues towards the 
actual  policy intervention,  some  other  observations and  considerations on  the  use  of  KPIs  and 
the  assessment  of  the  TJUs  performance  can  be  put  forward.  The  TJUs  tend  to  keep  a  large 
distance  when  it  comes  to  integrating,  linking  or  contextualizing  their  performance  vis-à-vis 
existing public reporting and data from their industry stakeholders. For example, an increasing 
amount of top-100 airlines produces annual sustainability reports, reporting historically on KPIs 
such as fuel efficiency, emissions and other resource consumption, both in absolute and relative 
terms (e.g. per passenger km or revenue passenger km). But for the railway sector, there are 
currently no ‘institutionalised’ approaches such as the Global Reporting Initiative(GRI)34 (e.g. in 
terms of sectorial guidance) but based on desk research a number of railway undertakings have 
embraced  GRI  certified  sustainability  reporting,  e.g.  NS  (Dutch  Railways)  and  CrossRail  (UK). 
Based on Internet research, many other examples publicly available are found around the world 
(Australia,  US,  Canada,  Japan).  Also,  rail  industry  related  trade  associations  might  play  an 
important role as partners to achieve those global benchmarks. 

It appears that the reporting and discussion of KPIs, in particular based on dynamic evolutions, 
is  not  yet  rooted  within  the  AARs  consulted.  Furthermore,  most  KPIs  are  stated  in  absolute 
terms  (reduction  or  increases  in  output  parameters),  but  do  not  relate  the  outcome  to  the 
resources used to achieve the output (including the evolution). As enhancing resource efficiency 

33   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  economic  and  social 

committee and the Committee of the regions: For a European industrial renaissance (COM/2014/014 final) 

34     Global Reporting Initiative, 2011. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines & Airport Operators Sector Supplemment.  

 
 
                                                
of transport systems is a major objective within all TJUs, we would recommend to re-assess the 
use of KPIs towards an increase in meaningfulness.  

Given  the  existence  of  a  transport  scorecard  on  the  EU  level,  linkages  to  and  contributions  to 
the  indicator(s)  development  represented  on  this  scorecard  is  advisable  to  provide  even 
stronger links to the EU policy impact measurement, and highlight the JU contribution within it.  

7.3 Operational efficiency of the S2R Joint Undertaking  

Overall  there  have  been  many  improvements  in  the  S2R  management  processes  but 
nonetheless  frustration  has  been  expressed  by  the  JU  members  concerning  the  administrative 
burden.  This  is  based  on  the  discussions  with  the  JU  management  as  well  as  from  interviews 
with representative bodies of the sector (UNIFE in particular) and with S2R participants (e.g. the 
S2R chairman). All identified this as a negative aspect of being part of the JU, and also saw that 
there were possible solutions.  

The extent of administration was not foreseen by the JU original promoters, and although it is 
recognised  that  this  comes  from  the  application  of  H2020  rules  there  is  a  risk  that  too  much 
time is allocated to this task, detracting from building continuity in the research programme and 
motivating  the partners to  actively  participate.  As  the  JU  partners  are  still  getting  used to the 
requirements  of  being  a  partner  for  some  this  may  part  of  a  learning  curve,  however  many 
partners have been involved with FP projects for many years and therefore we think that this is 
a valid point to bring to the attention of the Commission.  

In the short term, some levels of simplification should be able to be achieved whilst conforming 
to the basic requirements of H2020 and not detract from the research objectives in hand.  

‘Radically  enhancing  the  attractiveness  and  competitiveness  of  the  European  railway  system’ 
and ensure modal shift will require non-traditional rail players to join the S2R programmes.  

From our discussions, the perception of the administration required to be either directly involved 
or  as  part  of  a  consortia  is  seen  to  hamper  attracting  those  from  outside  rail  (but  indirectly 
involved, such as GSM  providers).  It is the experts opinion that it will be vital to attract these 
players  to  broaden  the  experience  and  knowledge  of  the  JU  and  deliver  the  multi-modal  and 
seamless solutions that are in line with the European policy agenda.  

It includes also the obligation to build consortia and submit detailed proposals for the evaluation 
by external independent experts, for projects submitted in response to calls to members. These 
projects have been  identified  as strategic to the  objectives of  the  JU  from  the origin and their 
participating  members,  being  FM  or  AM,  have  been  from  the  origin  selected  for  this  purpose. 
This is the reason why, indeed, only one proposal per call has been received. 

It is, of course, recognised that there is a need to build carefully the projects constituting the JU 
work  plan  and  to  have  them  evaluated,  at  least  through  an  internal  process,  before  being 
confirmed.  The  JU  members  generally  believe  however  that  a  simpler  procedure  should  be 
found so as to: 

 

 

shorten the present lead time, which is of about 18 month 

avoid  the  creation  of  unnecessary  additional  administrative  layers,  new  management 
and support committees etc. that have presently to be created at the level of each new 
project. 

 

reduce generally the administrative burden of reporting by simplifying processes  

Similar  criticisms  also  apply  to  projects  resulting  from  open  calls.  Even  though  the  need  for  a 
careful  independent  evaluation  is  better  recognised,  the  creation  of  specific  independent 

56 

 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

management  organisations  for  each  and  every  new  project  is  seen  as  constitutive  of  a  risk  of 
dispersion of efforts and of these projects forgetting the essential objectives of the JU. The IT or 
ICT related projects in particular cannot wait for the result of projects in one call to be used in 
the next call. The time for innovation in IT is significantly shorter.  

Specifically the following points were made in terms of the administrative burden:  

i) Evaluation process 

JU members complain about the numerous evaluations. From their perspective they have been 
selected either under the S2R regulation (founding members) or as a result of a competitive call 
(associate  members).  Their  technical  proposals  have  been  evaluated  by  independent  experts 
and they have had to commit to contribute up to the end of S2R, as part of their Membership 
Agreement. These commitments are therefore guaranteed.  

However  another  administrative  layer  is  added  to  this  selection  process,  as  the  distribution  of 
S2R  grants  is  once  again  dependant  on  evaluation  of  technical  proposals.  The  members  must 
submit their proposals of how they will actively contribute to the JU to become a member, a full 
submission under H2020 rules for participating in joint projects at the occasion of each annual 
call, and then further submissions following  a  slightly different format and rules for their input 
into the projects which are reflected in the MAAP and approved by the Governing Board and the 
various  Membership  Agreements.  Much  of  the  information  is  duplicated  but  there  is  effort 
required  to  put  it  each  time  into  the  different  submissions  and  this  means  that  resources  are 
used for this and not for the purposes of research.  

Everyone is in agreement that the allocation of funds by S2R requires independent evaluation, 
but the process described above results in all work under the programme being evaluated three 
times:  evaluation  of  technical  proposals  at  the  occasion  of  the  selection  of  the  members, 
evaluation  of  the  proposals  submitted  in  answer  to  calls  to  members,  and  then  on  the 
deliverables at the annual review.  

ii) Unnecessary administrative expenses for the JU 

The process of annual calls also creates an administrative cost for the JU, in terms of setting up, 
managing  and  closing  more  projects  that  it  is  necessary.  For  example,  the  JU  has  had  to 
unnecessarily break down IP2 projects into a series (X2Rail-1, X2Rail-2, etc.). What is lacking in 
particular in the JU Regulation is the notion of “multi-annuality”, i.e. the possibility of allocating 
the budget (but not necessarily to spend it) on a multi-annual basis. In more general terms, the 
obligation  made  to  the  JU  to  strictly  follow  the  H2020  processes,  coupled  with  the  number  of 
projects  to  follow    (as  of  today  already  36  +  4  lighthouses)  creates  a  heavy  administrative 
burden  that  is  not  entirely  necessary  and  does  not  add  any  value  or  transparency.  The  JU 
management has to both organise project per project reporting and at the same time to ensure 
consistency of the S2R programme. 

It  also  results  in  a  stock  piling  of  management  layers  at  IP  level  (Steering  committee,  user 
requirement groups etc.) and at project level (technical management team, advisory groups of 
all sort etc.) each of which is resource intensive.  

The JU management has made efforts to minimize the number of projects to partly alleviate this 
burden  and  encourages  technical  coordination  and  common  communication  efforts  between 
them. But a streamlined management would be more efficient.  For example instead of having a 
WP communication per project, as standard in H2020, having only one per IP (or even only one 
at the level of S2R) would free additional budget for more productive tasks. 

 
 
 
 
iii) Double financial reporting 

The  JU  has  to  generate  two  levels  of  financial  reports.  According  to  the  H2020  regulation, 
projects  are  funded  at  100%  (or  70%)  of  the  eligible  costs,  but  according  to  the  S2R 
Regulation,  members  must  contribute  to  at  least  55.56%  of  the  total  costs  (of  costs  eligible 
under  H2020  as  well  as  those  that  are  non-eligible  under  H2020).  On  the  members  side,  it 
results into two different annual financial reporting being requested for the same activity; one at 
project  level  and  another  one  (audited)  as  part  of  their  JU  membership.  A  simple  way  of 
simplification would be to give grants to the members at a modified  and  single rate (44,44%) 
based on their total costs. 

iv) Proposals  

The  burden  linked  with  the  obligation  to  build  fully-fledged  proposals  affects many  SMEs,  who 
may  not  have  either  previous  experience  in  H2020  to  draw  or  have  little  addition  resources 
within their organisations to allocate to the administrative side of taking part in projects. In the 
past (or even today for a regular H2020 call) they would have most often simply brought their 
expertise to a consortium  organised by  a big player,  or by a professional  organisation such as 
UNIFE or UIC who would have done this task.  As most of the major players are now founding 
members of the JU they are unable to assist in this fashion.  

There  is  no  discussion  on  the  need  for  independent  evaluation  of  the  scientific  value  of  the 
proposals  or  of  the  financial  and  technical  ability  of  the  companies  to  achieve  what  they 
propose,  but  in  terms  of  pure  consortia  organisation  simplified  procedures  could  help 
considerably. A model might be proposed by the JU (management structure, IPR, dissemination 
etc.) that would both alleviate the burden for the applicants and allow for a simplification of the 
management by the JU itself. 

More generally there are a number of ways of alleviating the  burden put on both the members 
and the JU, by at least taking as a given the pre-existing agreements on technical and scientific 
contents of the members participation and through the use of standard consortium agreements 
allowing  for  an  automatic  alignment  of  individual  project  management  structures,  IPR  issues, 
dissemination of results etc. with the pre-existing JU organisation. 

 7.4.  EU Added Value  

EU  Added  Value  relates  to  changes  that  can  be  attributed  to  the  EU  intervention  and  the 
additional  value  resulting  from  establishing  the  JU.  As  previously  mentioned  S2R  is  still  in  its 
early  stages  of  implementation  so  it  is  not  possible  to  make  any  robust  comparison  on  the 
financial  leverage  of  the  partners.  The  creation  of  the  JU  appears  as  an  excellent  way  of 
promoting the EU policies for rail and also to promote the sector’s leadership position. 

A  key  aspect  of  Shift2Rail  is  that  it  should  bring  together  the  different  actors  of  the  railway 
sector value chain to work together with the objective of validating solutions that will contribute 
to a modal shift from road to rail through a system demonstrator approach. A number of other 
areas  have  already  been  mentioned  as  having  directly  benefited  from  the  creation  of  the  JU, 
that would otherwise not have happened such as reduced fragmentation of the market, shared 
common vision for rail, and building trust between sub-sectors, major players and SMEs. 73%35 
of  the  respondents  from  the  EU  stakeholder  survey  felt  that  the  industry  (along  with  other 
possible  actors)  would  be  able  to  overcome  the  barriers  that  hinder  innovation  in  the  sector 
without the involvement of the EU.  

In addition due to the integral complexity of rail an added difficulty is that there is a high level 
of inter-dependence within the system so if one aspect may be improved the effect is not seen 

35   27% strongly and 46.5% disagreed that this could be done without EU involvement. 

58 

 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

across the system until all the relevant areas are upgraded. The extent and speed of uptake of 
research outputs therefore affects the value and impact of the system in non-lineal ways.  This 
will also impact the leverage effect.  

As  the  first  S2R  projects  only  became  operational  in  September  2016.  The  expected  leverage 
effect of the JU grants cannot therefore be calculated on the basis of project accounting36. We 
can  only  calculate  some  expected  leverage  effects  based  on  commitments  taken  in  the 
membership agreements and the already signed grant agreements. 

The following figures have been taken into account for this calculation: 

- 

- 

- 

IKOP:  total  presently  minimum  committed  value  of  the  in  kind  contribution  of  the  JU 
members  to  the  S2R  JU  programme,  for  the  total  duration  of  it,  as  per  the  presently 
signed37 membership agreements. IKOP=334 M€  

IKAA: total presently committed value of the additional activities of the JU members, as 
per the signed membership agreements. IKAA=163 M€  

Total expected maximum S2R contribution to the same activities: 267 M€ 

The  committed  leverage  effect  for  the  members  only  activity  for  the  whole  duration  of  the 
programme,  as  per 
therefore  of: 
(334+163)/267= 1,86. 

the  already  signed  membership  agreements 

is 

It was impossible for the experts to make any relevant estimate of what is the leverage effect of 
the signed grant agreements under S2R. The first grant agreements were signed in September 
2016, for a total value of 167.3 M€, co-funded at a level of 88 M€ (i.e. IKOP= 79,3 M€). 

The  JU  members  have  declared  to  have  spent  55  M€ in  additional  activities  by  the  end  of  the 
first reporting year (2016). This value corresponds to activities that started before the allocation 
of the S2R grants and therefore cannot be used for the calculation of a leverage effect, as the 
scopes do not correspond. 

From  the  discussions  by  the  experts  one  aspect  that  appeared  problematic  was  that  even 
between partners and founding members there were a number of different ways that leverage is 
calculated and that this depended largely on the data that was collected internally as much as 
trying to follow a preferred EU process on how to calculate.  

An indirect consequence of putting all European led research under the JU is the possible impact 
on  national  rail  research.  This  was  explored  to  some  extent  in  the  Internet  questionnaire  and 
the results can be seen in the table below:  

I fully 
agree  

I agree  

I partly 
agree  

I do not 
agree 

I am not 
able to 
comment  

0 

3 

4 

14 

18 

In your view has 
S2R increased 
national rail 
research investment 

36   At the end of April 2017, only 7,8 M€ worth of R&I activity had been declared by the JU members (additional activities 

excluded). 

37   There is a remaining budget for an additional activity worth 5.6 M€ by future new members. 

 
 
 
                                                
4 

3 

2 

9 

18 

1 

9 

5 

3 

19 

In your view has 
S2R decreased 
national rail 
research investment 

It has had little 
impact on national 
rail research 
investment 

Table 3 Possible impact on national rail research 

It should be noted that the majority of the respondents were not from the research sector so it 
is not clear if these results are really representative, but nonetheless it appears from interviews 
that the impact of S2R might have had a negative rather than positive impact on the level of rail 
research at national level in terms of funding levels. No details of any note were offered on this 
point.  The  situation  is  however  probably  extremely  different  from  a  country  to  another, 
depending on national funding mechanisms, national priority given to rail transport development 
or  the  existence  or  not  of  national  structures  dedicated  to  innovation  in  rail.  The  issue  would 
therefore  certainly  need  further  investigation,  including  direct  interview  of  the  concerned 
national research organisations. 

The experts suggest that this could be streamlined in line with the Annex note on KPIs and EU 
Added  Value  could  also  be  recognised  as  a  value  of  investment  rather  than  a  return  on 
investment.  This  opinion  is  based  on  the  positive  and  strong  support  that  was  received  by  us 
from  both  those  taking  part  in  the  JU  and  those  that  are  not  and  usually  have  more  critical 
remarks about it. They  all  thought that  there  was great value in creating such a PPP and that 
the EU was the best institution to do this.  

7.4 Coherence  

Two  aspects  of  coherence  have  been  investigated  in  this  evaluation.  Firstly  we  assessed  the 
internal coherence of the JU governance structure and management processes and evaluated if 
they comply with the requirements set out by the EU in an effective and efficient way. We also 
reviewed if the JU and its programmes are being managed in an open and transparent fashion 
and if they are consistent and coherent with a long-term strategic investment programme and 
the extent that this helps to overcome the fragmentation of R&I efforts. Secondly, we looked at 
external coherence considering how S2R interacts with other interventions under Horizon 2020, 
if  it is  coherent  with  the  main  H2020  programme  and  its  contribution  to the Union's  transport 
policy  goals.  We  briefly  considered  its  relation  with  other  Union  funding  programmes  (e.g. 
structural funds, CEF, EFSI). In addition a reflection on how S2R positions EU research globally, 
especially in respect to the retaining the competitiveness of the European rail industry has been 
considered and this is further developed in the annexes. 

7.4.1 Internal coherence 

In accordance with Article 17 of the S2R Statutes, the JU is required to carry out its work plan 
through two mechanisms: 

  Up  to  70  %  of  the  EU’s  financial  contribution  to  the  S2R  Joint  Undertaking  will  be 
implemented though  financial support to  S2R members, through  appropriate measures 
such as the awarding of grants following calls for proposals, of which 

 

up to 40 % of the EU’s financial contribution will be allocated to the founding members 
other than the EU and their affiliated entities; 

60 

 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

 

up to 30 % of the EU’s financial contribution will be allocated to the associated members 
and their affiliated entities. 

At least 30% of the EU’s contribution to the S2R JU budget will be implemented by outsourcing 
tasks through competitive calls for proposals and calls for tenders for non-JU members. This is 
coherent with the other PPPs. In line with H2020 rules neither founding nor associate members 
are able to respond to open calls.  

The activities of the S2R JU are identified in its strategic master plan (and multi-annual action 
plan MAAP).  The five key "Innovation Programmes": cost-efficient and reliable trains, including 
High-Speed  and  high-capacity  trains;  advanced  traffic  management  &  control  systems;  cost-
efficient  and  reliable  high  capacity  infrastructure;  IT  Solutions  for  Attractive  Railway  Services; 
Technologies for Sustainable & Attractive European Freight are aligned with the policy objectives 
of S2R is expected to deliver. 50% of the respondents from the EU stakeholders survey stated 
that they considered  other research and innovation areas  not  mentioned in the current Master 
plan and MAAP as being important to be addressed. It should be noted that since the time of the 
questionnaire the MAAP has been reviewed/updated and it is now under consultation. There was 
no  detail  of  what  areas  were  considered  important,  however  in  the  interviews  concerns  were 
expressed that there was not enough attention given to some areas that can be considered rail 
focussed or inter-modal – the example of stations over interchanges was given – and that these 
tended to slip through both the S2R research agenda and the H2020 one.  

As mentioned in earlier sections there has been an unforeseen side effect on the participation of 
SME due the adoption of H2020 rules. The initial intention was to grant SMEs direct and easier 
access to the programme and a facility to propose their innovative solutions but this also means 
that they need to invest time and resources in the preparation of responses to calls. Previously 
they  could  rely  on  the  experience  and  support  provided  by  larger  organisations,  but  who  are 
now  members  of  S2R  and  therefore  who  are  not  able  to  provide  this.  It  is  felt  that  this  is  a 
barrier  for  some  high  potential  SMEs  to  participate  in  the  open  calls  and  may  also  reduce  the 
quality of the results of the calls, compromising innovation.  

The S2R JU only became autonomous very recently and therefore it is not possible to properly 
evaluate the extent of the success  of  any outputs. The expectations are in line with the policy 
ambitions. 70% of the respondents from the EU stakeholder questionnaire stated that they felt 
it  had  been  set  up  in  a  transparent  manner.  However,  despite  the  setting  up  process  being 
transparent,  it  is  apparent  that  the  current  membership  of  the  S2R  JU  does  not  cover  all  rail 
actors  in  a  balanced  fashion.  Due  to  the  origins  of  the  JU,  rail  manufacturers  are  very  well 
represented,  but  the  presence  of  rail  operators  is  not  strong,  with  weak  links  with  urban  and 
intercity sectors. This is not considered to be a problem now but it should improve over time so 
the JU can better represent the whole system.  

7.4.2 External coherence  

EU interventions in respect of Europe’s railways are based on two main policy instruments. On 
the  one  hand,  legislative measures  aimed  at  opening  the  European  rail  market  and  promoting 
interoperability  (including  rail  safety  and  passenger  rights),  and  on  the  other  co-financing  of 
new  and  upgrading  rail  infrastructure.  Overall  progress  in  the  sector  depends  on  making  the 
most of the synergies between these instruments; for example, new cross border infrastructure 
should be built in such as way as to allow seamless travel between the two countries.  

Regulatory  European  packages  (SERA  and  interoperability)  are  not  sufficient  for  the 
development  of  a  strong  and  competitive  European  rail  transport  industry.  The  current  rail 
infrastructure is not well adapted to cater for trans-European services. Due to historical reasons 
the  European  network  is  made  up  of  a  patchwork  of  national  rail  systems,  most  having  been 
developed  to  meet  national  rather  than  international  needs.  There  are  also  missing  links 
between  national  rail  networks  (especially  at  cross-border  locations),  some  bottlenecks  on 
important  axes  and  the  general  age  of  much  of  the  infrastructure,  rolling  stock  and  systems 

 
 
(with  some  exceptions  of  course)  being  a  number  of  decades  old,  sometimes  more  than  60 
years, and in need of replacement or upgrade. 

The  EU’s  Transport  White  Paper  sets  out  10  goals  (across  all  transport  sectors)  to  achieve  a 
“competitive  and  resource  efficient  transport  system”,  with  a  central  benchmark  to  achieve  a 
60% GHG emission reduction target. Those that concern rail are set out below. 

1 Developing and deploying new and sustainable fuels and propulsion systems 

Reduce  conventionally  fuelled  car  transport,  achieve  CO2  free  city  logistics 

 
(indirectly associated with increasing rail modal share). 

2 Optimising the performance of multi-modal logistic chains 

Modal shift of 30% of road freight on distances higher than 330 km to rail and 

 
water-borne by 2030 (50% by 2050) 

3 Complete the HSR network by 2050, tripling the length  

 

Connect air core network to rail, preferably high speed  

4  Increasing  the  efficiency  of  transport  and  infrastructure  use  through  information 
systems and market based incentives 

 

Multi-modal information, management and payment systems 

5 Making Europe a world leader in safety in all modes of transport and implement the 
user pays and polluter pays principles 

Out of the 40 initiatives identified in the Transport White Paper, S2R is directly associated with:   

  A true internal market for rail services (n° 1)  

  Rail Safety (n°19)  

  Multi-modal freight corridors (n° 35) 

Research is seen as being a key enabler of achieving these goals via H2020. S2R was set up to 
help  the  rail  sector  achieve  the  European  transport  policy  ambitions,  as  set  out  in  the  2011 
Transport  White  Paper  (TWP)  and  other  documents  through  world  class  research  and  these 
outputs  should  be  delivered  in  line  with  the  main  H2020  programme.  The  JU  objectives  are 
perfectly  coherent  with  these  overarching  EU  Policy  objectives,  and  it  has  been  set  up  in  line 
with the regulation and basic act. Processes (management of JU, open calls, reporting etc.) also 
follow  the  rules  of  H2020.  The  JU  has  been  set  up  in  a  transparent  fashion  and  there  is  no 
evidence to imagine that this will not continue to be the case.  

S2R is not mentioned in the EU’s 2011 White Paper as it was not yet in existence; rail is seen as 
a key enabler and the sector is also identified as a priority area within the Connecting European 
Facility  (CEF)38.  Therefore  no  direct  links  with  the  other  funding  facilities  can  yet  be  made 
although  CEF  mentions  ERTMS,  command  and  control  management  system,  as  part  of  the 
traffic  managements  systems  required  in  all  modes,  and  TEN-T  rail  projects  devoted  to  the 
implementation  of  common  technical  standards  to  help  make  transport  safer,  cheaper,  more 
reliable and "greener" and enable the integration of both high-speed and conventional rail lines 
and their related infrastructures and facilities. S2R outputs are likely to assist  in making these 

38 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/projects-by-transport-mode/ 

62 

 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

realities but it is too early to be able to provide any evidence and at this point in time there is 
little evidence of the use of other financial instruments directly as an outcome of S2R.   

Nonetheless, the set of Shift2Rail has been designed to contribute to addressing the challenges 
faced  by  the  rail  sector  through  a  comprehensive  and  coordinated  approach  focusing  on  the 
needs of the rail system and of its users. Its priorities are:  

  Achieving  the  Single  European  Railway  Area  (SERA)  with  the  removal  of  remaining 
technical  obstacles  (interoperability)  and  through  a  transition  to  a  more  integrated, 
efficient  and  safe  EU  railway  market,  guaranteeing  the  proper  interconnection  of 
technical solutions. 

  Radically  enhancing  the  attractiveness  and  competitiveness  of  the  European  railway 
system to ensure a modal shift towards rail through a faster and cheaper transition to a 
more  attractive,  user-friendly  (including  for  persons  with  reduced  mobility),  efficient, 
reliable, and sustainable European rail system. 

  Help  the  European  rail  industry  to  retain  and  consolidate  its  leadership  on  the  global 
market  for  rail  products  and  services  by  ensuring  that  R&I  activities  and  results  can 
provide  a  competitive  advantage  to  EU  industries  and  stimulate  and  accelerate  the 
market uptake of innovative technologies. 

Shift2Rail publicly states (via its web site) that it will contribute to: 

  Cutting  the  life-cycle  cost  of  railway  transport  (i.e.  costs  of  building,  operating, 
maintaining,  renewing  and  dismantling  infrastructure  and  rolling  stock)  by  as  much  as 
50%; 

  Doubling railway capacity; 

 

Increasing reliability and punctuality by as much as 50%. 

Achieving the Single European Railway Area (SERA) relies heavily on the technical pillar of the 
4th Railway Package (adopted in May 2016) and this will impact the sector with new processes 
for vehicle authorisation,  safety certification  and  ERTMS trackside approval with ERA playing a 
defining  role.  The  content  of  the  S2R  Master-plan,  structured  into  5  innovation  programmes, 
has  been  highly  influenced  by  the  technical  scope  of  the  European  legislation  for  railways  and 
the  technical  pillar  of the Fourth  Railway  Package.  Therefore,  S2R is  well  positioned  with  ERA, 
and the Master Plan is aligned to the technical objectives, so there is every reason to expect the 
research  outputs  being  fully  coherent  with  the  requirements  to  deliver  SERA  in  terms  of 
standardisation.  

S2R  can  contribute  to  achieving  the  main  EU  policy  ambitions  but  alone  it  is  not  sufficient  to 
deliver  them,  this  is  especially  true  in  the  short  and  medium-term,  but  it  is  an  important 
instrument.  92% of the EU stakeholder survey agreed that the PPP (S2R), and by cooperating 
with ‘industry’, would bring better results to overcome the challenges of the rail sector in Europe 
than without this.  84% felt that S2R would  contribute directly to achieving SERA, and again a 
large  majority  84%  felt  that  it  would  enhance  the  attractiveness  and  competitiveness  of  the 
European railway system (helping to ensure modal shift). As rail transport is expected to be the 
most efficient  mass  transport  mode in  the  medium  distance,  modal  shift  should  primarily take 
place as a result of support and development of rail transport, but this can only be measured in 
the future and it is encouraging to see that there are high expectations from those involved in 
S2R and others who firmly believe in the role of S2R in this.  

In  addition,  the  strong  connection  with  the  European  regulations  and  standards  for  railways, 
which  did  not  apply  to  urban  operators,  was  in  particular  seen  by  them  as  a  disincentive  for 
urban rail operators to join the JU in the early stages. Despite the lack of urban players in S2R, 

 
 
it  is  indisputable  that  the JU  has  helped  to  address  the  historical  fragmentation  of  the  market 
and  has  been  instrumental  in  building  greater  trust  and  understanding  between  the 
manufacturing industry, operators and the research community. This is an on-going process and 
the experts are convinced that this will only improve.   

Paradoxically,  in  some  aspects  of  S2R  strong  adherence  to  H2020  rules  have  caused  some 
constraints, for example the requirement  to  use  H2020 IT solutions, which are not adapted to 
the needs of JUs. The issue of management of the S2R lighthouse projects is another example. 
The management of these ‘precursor’ projects was intended to be transferred to the JU but this 
has  not  proved  to  be  possible  due  the  H2020  rules.  It  can  also  be  concluded  that  despite 
adhering  to  those  rules  in  a  coherent  manner,  the  fact  that  these  projects  cannot  be  fully 
integrated into the JU has created unforeseen challenges in the continuity of the knowledge and 
research base. This may lead to a lack of continuity from the research outputs of the lighthouse 
projects under H2020, at this point it can only be considered as a risk, for these projects only. 
How S2R will deal with  other  aspects of multi-modal rail research  from  H2020  is not  yet  clear 
but the responses from the EU stakeholder survey showed positive expectations – 76% felt that 
the  activities  of  S2R  were  coherent  (somewhat  or  very)  with  other  activities  of  the  H2020 
programme. 

A point can also be made about a level of incoherence in some horizontal areas of work such as 
the  use  of  GSM.  Efficient  rail  communications  will  in  the  future  rely  more  and  more  on  digital 
exchanges  –  yet  there  is  as  yet  little  cooperation  between  DG  MOVE,  RTD  and  CONNECT  so 
transport  could  benefit  from  the  developments  in  this  sector.  The  life  and  research  cycles  of 
information technologies is significantly  shorter than  most rail research so rail should probably 
benefit  from  expertise  and  research  coming  from  outside  its  sector  in  order  to  avoid 
obsolescence in this area (which is not a core competence of rail).  

In  addition,  in  other  parts  of  this  report  there  is  reference  to  freight  and  its  lack  of  visibility 
within this version, and although this is perfectly acceptable now in the future freight should be 
better  positioned  within  S2R.  It  is  unlikely  that  this  would  be  the  choice  of  the  current  major 
players in S2R as freight is not seen as being a very dynamic sector, but it is precisely because 
of this that it needs to  find  a place  in  S2R or it will  continue to be considered to be marginal. 
This notion is supported by the European Court of Auditors report on rail freight (2016)39 which 
investigated  the  performance  of  rail  freight  transport  in  the  EU  since  2000,  based  on  visits  to 
five Member States – the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France and Poland – between mid-
2014 and mid-2015. In the report, they state that the EU budget contributed approximately €28 
billion to funding rail projects between 2007 and 2013, but despite this and the priority given by 
the Commission to shifting freight from road to rail, EU rail freight transport has not responded 
effectively  to  the  competition  presented  by  road  and  its  performance  overall  remains 
unsatisfactory  and  rail  freight’s  average  share  at  EU  level  has  actually  declined  slightly  since 
2011.  Although  this  decline  was  not  Europe  wide  and  some  Member  States  (such  as  Austria, 
Germany and Sweden) managed to achieve better results, it shows that without clear impetus it 
is unlikely that freight will deliver on its own. Within S2R the current thinking is that freight will 
benefit  from  a  number  of the  IPs  outputs  from  S2R,  but in  the  future  the  JU should  put  more 
effort directly into freight (maybe in S2R-2). A second finding from the report notes that better 
maintenance would go a long way to improving the performance of rail.  

It is also unknown what impact the “Brexit” negotiations may have on this JU (or any other with 
strong  UK  players).  It  is  likely  that  others  will  step  in  to  fill  any  gaps  but  this  may  not  be  as 
simple as it appears. Network Rail is both a founding member and an IP leader (and currently is 
also the Chair of ERRAC) therefore either the other founding members will need to both fill any 
financial  shortcomings  and  provide the  resources  for  filling  the  expert  gap, or  there  may  be  a 

39 http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/NewsItem.aspx?nid=6970 

64 

 
 
                                                
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

need to bring one or other new/different player on board. As this is a complete unknown at this 
point, it is only pointed out as a risk.  

The evaluation has analysed, assessed and draws the conclusions on the following aspects: 

8.  CONCLUSIONS 

 

 

 

the continued relevance of the S2R Joint Undertaking.  

if  the  (original)  policy  rationale  underlying  the  S2R  JU  is  still  in  line  with  today’s 
challenges faced in its specific industrial area. 

the  overall  progress  towards  the  objectives  set  in  the  Council  Regulation  establishing 
S2R JU. 

  whether  the  public-private  partnership  is  implemented  in  an  open,  transparent, 

effective and efficient way. 

  whether the public-private partnership demonstrates EU added value and is generating 

the necessary leverage. 

 

 

that there is coherence between the S2R JU and the main H2020 programme; 

that  there  is  an  overall  contribution  of  the  transport  JUs  (combined)  to  the  Union's 
transport policy goals. 

In  the  following  section  the  experts  put  forward  our  conclusions  followed  by  some 
recommendations  for  improving  the  future  implementation  of  S2R  JU,  taking  into  account  the 
specific governance structure of this public-private partnership and the specific needs of rail. 

During our investigations, the expert team has appreciated the open and frank interactions with 
the S2R management team, JU members and stakeholders. We have been uniformly impressed 
by their support and enthusiasm for the JU. In this respect we are unanimous in extending our 
own  support  and  enthusiasm  for  the  JU  and  our  confidence  that  valuable  contributions  will  be 
made to European Railway Research from its creation that would otherwise not have occurred. 
We  are  assured  that  the  JU  will  help  to  promote  increased  mutual  understanding  and 
cooperation  amongst  the  members  and  other  stakeholders,  and  that  it  will  generate  outputs 
which will assist the development of EU Transport policy. We do however reiterate that because 
of the early stage of the life of the JU, there are currently no concrete research achievements on 
which we could form an opinion. 

8.1 Relevance of the initiative and objectives  

The JU and its objectives continue to be of relevance despite the fact that they were set down 
between 5 and 7 years ago. These are in line with the EU’s general transport objectives and the 
challenges  set  out  earlier  in  this  report.  This  was  validated  in  the  interviews  as  well  as  the 
Internet  survey.  It  has  been  created  according  to  the  legal  framework  and  the  agreed 
regulations and is currently being managed following this structure and requirements. However 
that said there is still room for improvement and adjustments in the period of implementation of 
this JUs term as well as areas that need more fundamental changes in a S2R–2.  

There are some key areas that we would like to highlight in terms of a lack of flexibility in the 
current management structure(s). The management structure and processes are seen to be too 
rigid  to  allow  new  ideas  to  be  introduced  that  may  arise  and  a  suggestion  is  made  in  the 
recommendations on this. The constraints for AM to take part in other areas such as open calls 
should  also  be  rethought  as  presently  this  is  seen  to  reduce  rather  than  increase  both 
innovation and the potential for leaders to contribute outside of their allocated position within an 

 
 
IP. As the process for the appointment of AM was seen as somewhat flawed this goes hand in 
hand and is logical outcome.   

However, it is important to recognise that current trends in transport are not yet aligned to the 
European  policy  goals  set  out  earlier  in  the  report,  despite  significant  investments  in 
infrastructure  and  services.  The  modal  share  of  passenger  rail  has  remained sensibly  constant 
since 199540 and the modal share of rail freight in Europe has decreased in the past decade. Rail 
needs to become more attractive  to the end user  and these  trends need to be reversed if  the 
rail sector is going to remain competitive and fulfil the policy ambitions of Europe. 

8.2 Implementation state of play of the S2R JU 

Overall,  we  are  pleased  to  conclude  that  public  funds  have  been  made  assessable  through 
transparent  processes  and  competitive  calls.  Participation  however  is  not  even  throughout  the 
EU  Member States, but this is through  no  fault  of the management of the JU and there is still 
some way to go to fully be representative of the whole rail system. In addition, due in part to 
the nature of the market and the dominance of leaders in each sub-sector, there is a tendency 
for the larger players to guide the work leaving the smaller players somewhat dissatisfied. Care 
will need to be taken in order to address this in a sensitive fashion but it is entirely possible for 
the  JU  management  to  ensure  that  small  and  medium  player  find  their  correct  place  and  feel 
that  their  voices  are  heard.  It  is  after  all  often  the  case  that  SMEs  bring  in  innovation  rather 
than the more dominant players. In either case space for everyone should be ensured.    

It  is  apparent  that  there  is  a  huge  degree  of  difference  in  the  situations  of  the  railways  in 
different  countries,  and  therefore  the  medium  and  long-term  objectives  of  different  countries 
may  vary  and  may  indeed  be  at  variance  with  overarching  European  single  railway  strategies. 
We also propose in our recommendations that there is an argument for the open-calls for non-
members to form a larger proportion of the budget. 

8.3 Effectiveness of implementation and main achievements  

We  are  content  that, in  general,  the  JU  has  been  formulated  in  accordance  with  its  regulatory 
framework. The roles and responsibilities of the each of the bodies of the JU are clear and well 
defined, but it is too early to judge how well they will operate in the longer term. We have some 
reservations about the role played so far by the Scientific Committee.  

We  have  identified  no  major  issues  with  the  channels  of  communication  between  the  various 
bodies, which comprise the JU, although there are areas of improvement. While noting that the 
JU has been additionally tasked with managing all EU funded railway research, which initially it 
was not intended we feel that in order to discharge this task effectively, its membership should 
be  more  representative  of  the  railway  system  as  a  whole  and  its  role  and  remit  with  other 
European railway bodies, particularly in relation to ERRAC should be clarified.   

The strategic vision and working programmes are coherent with the objectives of the JU and are 
considered  to  be  relevant.  They  are  expected  to  deliver  the  level  of  innovation  and  change  in 
the rail sector that will contribute to achieving the SERA and enhance the competitiveness of the 
European rail sector. There is a focus on technical rather than societal or operational aspects in 
this period and it is thought that this is a correct approach but that these other aspects should 
be considered for any subsequent S2R-2. 

The design and topics chosen for the first open calls attracted a good response, and the trends 
indicate  that  this  will  improve  with  time.  It  is  desirable  to  attract  a  broad  geographical 
representation of players and expertise. It is too early to fully evaluate if the balance between 
members-only and open calls is optimal.  

40   EU Transport in figures, 2016, Table 2.3.2 

66 

 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

The number of major players from the private sector in S2R indicates that the outputs of the IPs 
and  the  experience  from  the  demonstrator  projects  should  result  in  a  high  level  of  market 
uptake.  The  experts  noted  that  due  to  unforeseen  complications  the  lighthouse  projects  have 
not been able to be seamlessly integrated in the JU and this may create some gaps (as different 
players may take these issues at a later date). 

The  creation  of  the  JU  has  lead  to  an  increased  visibility  of  rail  research  and  improved  the 
coordination of  many  technical  aspects.  However  there  are  some  concerns on  the  multi-modal 
aspects.  From  a  number  of  interviews  concerns  were  expressed  that  having  all  rail  research 
being ‘organised’ by the rail sector increased the exclusivity of rail and reduced opportunities for 
inter/multi-modal  solutions  and  innovation.  The  rail  sector  seen  from  the  outside  is  often 
perceived as being individualistic.   

 8.4. Operational efficiency of the S2R JU 

S2R  is  still  setting  into  its  management  processes.  Whilst  things  have  worked  so  far,  and  we 
have  been  impressed  by  the  efficiency  of  the  management  personnel  and  their  open  and  raid 
response to our queries, there are some areas we have identified which may improve matters in 
the future. The current management is seen as being effective and there is widespread support 
for the new Executive Director. The experts would also like to recognise that S2R will certainly 
benefit  from  his  previous  experience  with  SESAR  and  the  running  of  the  JU.  This  has  already 
borne fruit  with accelerating the management  processes  since  his coming on board. He is also 
putting his full team in place and this should help to ensure that S2R fulfils its potential.   

The  experts  also  identified  that  some  improvements  are  needed  in  the  advisory  roles  and 
supporting bodies of the JU. This has been discussed in the section on ERRAC and ERA, and the 
fact  that  the  scientific  committee  which  is  a  useful  resource  appears  to  be  underutilised 
currently.  The  Governing  Board  should  shift  towards  playing  a  more  strategic  rather  than 
administrative  role  and  it  is  felt  that  advantages  could  be  had  if  there  were  more  (or  at  least 
some) non-rail voices in the bodies that are developing the future thinking of S2R.   

Additionally  there  are  some  issues  with  communication  between  the  IPs  that  also  need  to 
attention. The main risks identified by the expert team are some lack of continuity between the 
lighthouse  projects  and  certain  IPs  work  and  also  a  lack  of  communication  between  the  IPs 
currently.  Although  it  is  not  felt  that  this  poses  any  immediate  problem  but  in  the  future  and 
especially in terms of the demonstrators it will be important to maximise the full potential of the 
combined effects of the outputs from the IPs.   

The  management  functions  of  the  JU  appear  to  be  timely  and  well  executed.  There  is  no 
benchmark for time to grant, as there are few calls to base this on.  

 8.5. EU added value 

Our discussions with the major players have indicated that the joint programme of cooperative 
research would not have happened without the creation of the JU. This is in itself a major added 
value and is seen to have significantly helped to improve fragmentation in the market.  

The founding members are committed to 50/50 funding within the JU, but it is too early to say 
what addition leverage will flow from the work programme and therefore too early to carry out 
quantitative assessments. It is envisaged that much of the added value of the JU will be spread 
over the wide societal benefits that railway influence and, again, it is too early to estimate the 
magnitude of these benefits. 

In  addition  the  experts  feel  that  there  is  potential  for  greater  collaboration  between  transport 
JUs. It is felt for example that a number of pitfalls could have been either avoided or mitigated 
had there been more learning transferred from other more mature transport JUs. Most JUs face 
the similar issues, such as lower participation of SMEs, patchy coverage of member states with 

 
 
 
a  few  more  dominant  countries,  and  having  to  engage  with  a  wide  variety  of  players  with 
different  interests  etc.  It  is  felt  that  there  could  have  been  more  exchanges  in  these  areas  as 
well  as  the  experience  of  managing  large  multi  partner  projects  as  part  of  a  JU.    The  experts 
feel that there is missed potential and collaboration should be fostered between similar JUs. This 
would also boost exchanges of thinking as well as identify areas of common interest. In the past 
there  were  some  calls  issued  by  one  of  other  JU  that  should  have  had  some  input  from,  for 
example S2R.  

 8.6. Coherence 

While the objectives of the JU are perfectly coherent with the overarching EU Policy objectives, 
it  is  apparent  that  the  current  membership  of  the  S2R  JU  does  not  cover  all  rail  actors  in  a 
balanced fashion. Due to the origins of the JU, rail manufacturers are very well represented, and 
indeed  dominate,  but  for  example,  the  presence  of  rail  operators  is  not  strong,  and  the 
interactions between urban  and  intercity  sectors could need to be better to fully represent the 
whole system. The outputs may therefore be limited to this rather skewed membership and this 
may  limit  the  achievement  of  delivery  of  system  wide  research  and  the  delivery  across  the 
range of EU policy objectives. 

These  relative  weaknesses  in  the  membership  are  linked  with  the  fact  that  S2R  is  largely 
focussed  on  providing  technical  solutions,  while  many  of  the  EU  policy  objectives  require 
behaviour change. This is currently lacking in this JU – although it was never intended to include 
these  aspects when it was designed, a second  version  should  consider how  to  incorporate this 
more formally.  

Another  aspect  that  should  be  highlighted  is  that  there  is  a  lack  of  continuity  due  to  the  rigid 
nature  of  the  structure.  This  was  pointed  out  in  a  number  of  interviews,  notably  by  UITP  who 
gave the example of important technical outputs from a previous EU project that had been built 
by consensus but that were not being incorporated into work being done by S2R. There was no 
one  from  that  project  in  the  S2R  IP,  and  more  worryingly  in  the  opinion  of  this  major  urban 
stakeholder,  and partly  shared  by  the  experts  a lack  of  the  broad  experience  required  for  this 
topic  available  within  S2R.  This  creates  a  risk  for  technical  standards  to  be  proposed  that  are 
not aligned with urban or possible regional requirements.      

9.  RECOMMENDATIONS  

From  this  evaluation,  it  is  clear  that  the  creation  of  this  JU  on  rail  is  widely  supported  and 
considered  to  be  crucial  for  the  delivering  better  quality,  integrated  and  value  for  money 
research  than  would  otherwise  be  the  case.  The  expectations  of  the  level  of  excellence  and 
outputs  of  the  JU  are  considered  to  be  in  line  with  estimations.  The  concept  of  S2R  is  fully 
supported by all stakeholders, and those that are currently involved are starting to build a sense 
of  community.  From  the  experts’  observations  from  the  two  other  transport  JUs,  which  were 
part of this evaluation group, this is one of the main outcomes of the JUs. The more mature JUs, 
especially CS, have created a strong bond between players that would not have been able to be 
built  up  without  the  long-term  investment  of  the  JU.  These  JUs  cannot  be  considered  to  be 
merely research or demonstrator programmes, but act as a catalyst not only for new ideas but 
also  for  new  partnerships  to  be  created.  This  has  already  been  the  case  for  S2R.  Trust  and 
partnership-spirit are difficult to monetise but can be considered as a value of investment rather 
than a return of investment.  

Despite the strong support for the setting up of the S2R JU and its management, we have put 
together  a  number  of  suggestions  in  this  report,  which  we  think  could  would  bring 
improvements both in this edition of S2R and provide guidance for a second edition, S2R-2. This 
section  recapitulates  the  most  significant  ones  followed  by  a  more  discursive  and  analytic 
section on strategy going forward in the context of the worldwide railway situation and a paper 
on the learning from the evaluation of all three transport JUs (Clean Sky 1 & 2, SESAR & SESAR 
2020 and S2R). 

68 

 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

9.1 Transfer of knowledge between transport JUs 

In this respect, it is noted that there  is little transfer of knowledge between transport JUs and 
this  is  considered  to  be  an  area  where  improvements  could  be  made.  There  are  many 
complementary aspects that could be usefully shared between JUs. The usual complaints of how 
to be more inclusive, getting SMEs on board, achieving good geographical balance, complicated 
management processes and reporting processes etc. are common to all transport JUs, however 
this  learning  was  not  really  transferred  despite  S2R  being largely  based  on  Clean  Sky.  Indeed 
part  of  the  success  of  the  new  Executive  Director  is  because  he  has  been  able  to  use  his 
previous experience from SESAR in this way. The experience of how others are able to comply 
with the regulations yet broaden the players and eco-system is another example. Compared to 
Clean Sky and in some respects SESAR, the number of players in S2R is still very small but this 
does not mean that they should remain so, and the learning of how others have managed this is 
considered to be useful. Another example is the Technology Evaluator, part of the Clean Sky JU 
that uses modelling to estimate the combined impact of the research from the JU with variable 
uptake  values.  S2R  also  has  a  technology  evaluator,  not  exactly  the  same  but  with  similar 
objectives.  The  same  organisation  (DLR)  is  responsible  for  both  the  Clean  Sky  and  S2R  ones, 
but currently it has not shared any experience or been asked to do so. Although one technology 
evaluator cannot be copied directly to another JU, the experience from Clean Sky could also be 
valid for S2R, where the effectiveness of an innovation strongly depends on its interaction with 
other parts of the subsystem.  

There is a common problem with the IT tools across all JUs imposed by H2020 and this could be 
an area that a joint, rather than individually per JU, solution could be found. In short, there is a 
tendency  for  each  JU  to  reinvent  the  wheel  when  there  is  already  useful  learning  that  can  be 
used,  not  necessary  to  copy  but  to  accelerate  solutions  and  therefore  increase  efficient  use  of 
resources.  The  trick  will  be  to  make  this  process  of  exchange  meaningful  without  being 
cumbersome.  

The current joint JU meeting is not the right forum for this type of exchange and an annual or 
biannual  meeting  between  like-minded  JUs  could  be  very  productive  and  also  create  a  better 
community  where  sharing  may  occur  naturally.  Currently  this  is  not  formalised  and  relies  on 
personal  contacts.  We  therefore  recommend  that  the  management  of  S2R  investigates  with 
others how knowledge can be transferred and incorporated into the future. 

9.2 Improving the balance of the eco-system 

The system wide balance of the actors in SR2 is currently rather poor. Ultimately it is important 
that both the research outputs and  the  demonstrators are  relevant to  a wide  range of  players 
and  currently  there  are  weak  links  with  the  operational  side  of  both  passenger  and  freight  as 
well as gaps in  urban rail players.   Increasing the participation of a greater number of railway 
undertakings, increasing the presence of the urban sector and encouraging more Member States 
especially SMEs to be involved is recommended. Currently this can only be achieved through the 
open  calls.  This  is  considered  to  be  a  constraint  to  achieving  excellence,  as  S2R  members  are 
not able to contribute substantively to research in any other IP or the open calls. This exclusion 
is a seen as a problem due to H2020 rules and the way the JU has been set up. A review of the 
framework for Associate Members to be able to participate in open calls is also recommended.  

There  is  a  lack  of  incentive,  especially  for  non-traditional  actors  to  take  part  in  the  open  calls 
due  to  the  administrative  burden  involved  (perceived  or  real).  Consortia  members  need  to 
provide  a  lot  of  information  that  could  be  streamlined.  We  also  recommend  that  the  issues  of 
administrative burden be examined by the Commission (it has been mentioned by a majority of 
those  involved  in  this  evaluation  and  employs  time  which  could  be  more  productively  spent). 
Ideally simplification of processes, while retaining the integrity of the H2020 requirement could 
be developed that would be more attractive for rail and non-rail players to respond to the open 
calls.  Currently  there  is  no  additional  advantage  of  responding  to  a  JU  or  H2020  call.  This  is 
seen as being attractive to SME participation and could result in increased innovation potential. 

 
 
9.3 Addressing the societal aspects  

S2R has been set up to address the technical aspects of part of the railway system. The current 
structure  and  the  input  of  the  lighthouse  projects  overall  addresses  these  aspects  well.  Yet  a 
number  of  the  EU  policy  objectives  are  not  uniquely  based  on  technical  aspects  of the  system 
but also include societal and inter-modal aspects in line with a holistic and integrated approach 
to  seamless  mobility.  This  is  partly  addressed  in  one  IP  but  not  yet  included  in  S2R  in  any 
substantive  fashion  and  we  strongly  recommend  that  a  whole  system  approach  be  developed 
with  more  attention  paid  to  societal  aspects.  There  are  a  number  of  ways  that  this  can  be 
integrated  into  S2R,  as  well  as  included  in  a  more  formal  way  in  S2R-2.  For  example,  it  is 
recommended  that  non-rail  players  with  relevant  experience  and  knowledge  are  able  to  help 
guide  the  future  development  of  S2R  and  its  bodies  that  advise  it  on  visioning.  Secondly,  a 
greater  use  of  the  scientific  committee  and  a  broadening  of  its  membership  is  also 
recommended.  Thirdly  better  use  generally  of  the  advisory  bodies  to  provide  technical  and 
strategic advice is recommended – although it is recognised that this may also come as the JU 
matures.   

9.4 Visioning and outward looking  

The current management is functioning well however it is difficult for the expert group to make 
any substantive recommendations as it has observed the  impressive progress made  in  a short 
time  since  the  Executive  Director  has  taken  up  his  position.  Therefore,  the  we  recommend  in 
that  care  is  taken  in  ensuring  that  there  is  good  communication  and  outreach  to  those 
interested  in  rail  but  who  are  outside  of  S2R  and  possibly  even  outside  the  rail  sector.  For 
historical  reasons,  it  is  recognised  that  there  is  a  legacy  of  mistrust  from  those  that  are  not 
involved, which over time also needs to be dissipated.  

The expert team observed that the longer-term strategic view of the railway research agenda is 
somewhat weak in the current structure. This might be improved by a more proactive scientific 
committee  and  by  reform of  ERRAC  with  a  clear  steer  on  its  role  as  a  strategic  advisor  to  the 
commission and to the JU. Because  the  S2R JU  has been charged with  the management of  all 
EU  railway  research,  the  question  arises  on  who  advises  on  the  strategy?  This  role  should  be 
fulfilled by ERRAC, but it is not able to do this effectively at the current time and we therefore 
recommend  that  it  be  strengthened  in  budget  and  membership.  We  also  recommend  that  it 
should  be  recognised  as  an  observer  on  the  S2R  Governing  Board  and  that  its  membership 
should not be a mere subset of S2R members. In addition, the Transport Advisory Group (TAG), 
which should advise the Commission on taking transport forward with H2020, is not involved in 
S2R.  This  is  seen  as  a  missed  opportunity  as  there  should  be  close  integration  between  the 
H2020 and the S2R calls. Creating more inclusive  processes  for supporting a future orientated 
planning for S2R could go some way to addressing the perception of exclusion by some players. 

9.5 Improving innovation and efficiency 

Railways,  like  all  transport  modes,  use  innovations  from  everywhere  and  not  only  those 
developed  in  Europe.  From  a  technical  perspective  one  could  argue  that  the  only  true 
independent  railway  research  interest  areas  are  at  the  interfaces  which  define  the  railway 
system:  between  the  wheel  and  rail,  the  current  collector  of  the  pantograph  and  between  the 
wayside and on board elements of the control-command and signalling systems. It is therefore 
essential  that  a  close  watch  is  made  of  useful  developments  elsewhere,  a  task  probably  best 
undertaken  by  “outsiders”,  as  these  potentially  useful  developments  may  come  from,  for 
example, the digital society, from materials science and from evolving societal demands.  It is a 
recommendation that sufficient capabilities and budget are retained with the JU to conduct this 
outward  looking  search.  It  is  noted  that  when  it  was  decided  that  S2R  would  manage  all  rail 
research the budget from the initial JTI was not increased – this should be revisited in a second 
edition.  

70 

 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

The recommendation for the creation of a transverse IP on IT and telecommunications could be 
an element of this strategy as well as creating an instrument that (as yet) unforeseen research 
or  areas  of  interest  could  be  incorporated  into  current  research.  The  present  structure  for 
introducing  research  is  extremely  rigid  in  this  respect  and  there  is  no  space  for  new  or 
innovative thinking to be included.  As the technology cycles for rail are usually rather long this 
poses  no  immediate  threat.  But  as  new  and  different,  non-traditional  areas,  such  as 
telecommunications  and  IT  based  innovations  take  a  more  central  role  in  railways  service 
delivery, and where  the development cycles are  much shorter, there are  risks of obsolescence 
and redundancy.  

In  building  the  current  innovation  program  of  S2R  more  attention  has  been  put  on  passenger 
transportation  rather  than  on  freight  (even  though  the  83  M€  budget  of  IP5  is  significantly 
higher  than  what  has  been  spent  in  railway  freight  focused  research  in  the  scope  of  any 
previous  FP).  While  the  European  policy  agenda  also  requires  significant  shift  of  freight  from 
road to rail, IP5’s programme was created  after the constitution of the JU membership and  its 
efficiency is partly jeopardised by a lack of continuity with the lighthouse project concerned. The 
quality of its outcomes will also depend on collaboration schemes to be built retroactively with 
other  IP  and  JU  members.  It  is  recommended  that  the  issues  of  concern  to  freight 
transportation  are  more  pro  actively  addressed  in  a  S2R-2  and  that  ERRAC  and  S2R  jointly 
undertake a strategic investigation to prepare for this. 

9.6 Review of performance metrics  

Transport  is  a  highly  inter  dependant  and  inter  related  sector,  more  so  than  many  other 
industrial sectors. If one part of a journey does not connect or serve the customer properly the 
whole  system  does  not  deliver.  Therefore  by  only  viewing  leverage  in  financial  terms  for 
transport  does  not  provide  the  certainty  that  the  higher  levels  of  EU  Added  Value  have  been 
achieved.  In our view we recommend that a number of the KPIs should also be reviewed.  

The current set of KPIs are considered to be too many and in some respects inappropriate.  

10.  FURTHER REMARKS 

In  respect  to  developing  a  concept  for  S2R-2  the  expert  group  would  like  to  highlight  some 
international trends of interest. Europe is not leading in the development of High Speed rail and 
this needs to be recognised. The density and length of systems in Asia (Japan, Korea and China) 
are much more extensive that those in Europe. The competition, from the Far East, to European 
manufacturers,  arises  mainly  though  the  huge  economies  of  scale  enjoyed  by  the  Far  East 
manufacturers  supporting  huge  domestic  markets.  If  European  manufacturers  wish  to  defend 
their position, they need a clear strategic view on how this might be achieved. By competing on 
cost, reliability, quality, or innovation?  

Therefore Europe should focus on high potential areas where it is currently leading. An example 
is that one of the key targets (objective)  of  S2R,  that of  doubling  railway  capacity, may merit 
review.  If  it  were  to  be  cast  in  doubling  utilisation,  it  may  be  more  appropriate.  Indeed,  the 
White  Paper  on  Transport,  calls  for  triple  the  length  of  the  existing  European  HS  network  by 
2030.  Is  this  realistic?  Again,  from  the  White  Paper,  we  note  that  coherence  and  relevance  at 
the  EU  level  is  vital,  but  the  railway  situation  across  the  EU  is  extremely  variable  and  it  is 
therefore difficult to bring the situation in all Member States into line. Much railway exists which 
is grossly under-utilised: some railway is extremely congested in some key parts. Very different 
actions  are  needed  to  produce  an  effective  railway  in  these  different  circumstances:  reducing 
inefficient route in some countries: removing bottlenecks in others. A blanket policy of doubling 
capacity does not address these different needs.  

In passing we note that the environmental performance of railways depends critically on three 
factors, the first being the reduction in the use of fossil fuel by the railways, the second by the 
elimination  of  fossil  fuels  from  the  generation  of  electricity  used  by  the  railways  and  the  third 

 
 
being high passenger load factor on trains. It is for this reason that the tables 3&4 below are so 
important. 

Innovation  has  become  a  prominent  buzzword  in  recent  years,  but  innovation  is  a  continuous 
process. It is not the result of a management edict, go out and innovate, but more the result of 
the availability of well educated, motivated and free thinking people. We are disappointed that 
no emphasis is given to the increasing the human capacity and knowledge management through 
railway research: this is in stark contrast to the efforts being made by the Far Eastern railway 
organisations  to  place  their  people  in  top  quality  European  education  establishments.  (One  of 
the authors has direct experience of almost weekly applications of Chinese Government funding 
students applying to conduct research with him on high-speed rail topics).  

Furthermore, we need to distinguish between research and innovation, even though they form a 
continuous  spectrum.  Universities  should  be  principally  concerned  with  research,  industry  with 
development: it is clear that most of the research being conducted by the JU will tend towards 
the  development  side  of  the  spectrum,  the  Universities  being  mainly  confined  to  open  call 
projects. This reduces the opportunity of the Universities to do what they do best: that is, the 
development  of  ideas  and  people.  As  S2R  is  responsible  for  managing  and  to  some  extent 
guiding  all  European  supported  rail  research  they  also  have  some  responsibility  for  helping  to 
create  the  new  generation  of  rail  researchers.  As  national  research  budgets  shrink  this  is  an 
area for future reflection, yet is it often at this level and/or with SMEs that innovative solutions 
are created. 

Currently  there  is  not  place  in  the  JU  for  TRL  level  1/blue  sky  research  which  is  often  where 
universities  are  able  to  offer  the  most  value  in  research,  and  there  is  certainly  no  place  to 
consider ‘failure’. Failure in research terms can sometimes bring the greatest value – by proving 
that  a  concept  will  actually  not  deliver  what  you  thought  it  might,  and  in  the  process  other 
unconsidered pathways may become apparent – and there is certainly no place for this thinking 
currently. As S2R now manages all rail research this should be considered in future editions. In 
view of the importance of these issues they are discussed further in Appendix 1. 

In conclusion we would like to reiterate the wide support for this JU. Its creation was timely, the 
commitment of the members is evident and there are high expectations for its outputs. It is the 
opinion  of  the  experts  that  a  second  version  of  S2R  should  be  considered,  partly  because 
continuation is needed for the fruitful outcomes of this edition to become mainstream, but also 
because this evaluation has identified a number of  improvements that would help increase the 
impact and value for money in terms of achieving the European policy targets.  

10.1 Future strategy in the context of a world view of rail 

In  respect  to  developing  a  concept  for  S2R-2  the  expert  group  would  like  to  highlight  some 
international trends of interest. Europe is not leading in the development of High Speed rail and 
this needs to be recognised. The density and length of systems in Asia (Japan, Korea and China) 
are much more extensive that those in Europe. The competition, from the Far East, to European 
manufacturers,  arises  mainly  though  the  huge  economies  of  scale  enjoyed  by  the  Far  East 
manufacturers  supporting  huge  domestic  markets.  If  European  manufacturers  wish  to  defend 
their position, they need a clear strategic view on how this might be achieved. By competing on 
cost, reliability, quality, or innovation?  

Therefore Europe should focus on high potential areas where it is currently leading. An example 
is that one of the key targets (objective)  of  S2R,  that of doubling railway capacity, may merit 
review.  If  it  were  to  be  cast  in  doubling  utilisation,  it  may  be  more  appropriate.  Indeed,  the 
White  Paper  on  Transport,  calls  for  triple  the  length  of  the  existing  European  HS  network  by 
2030.  Is  this  realistic?  Again,  from  the  White  Paper,  we  note  that  coherence  and  relevance  at 
the  EU  level  is  vital,  but  the  railway  situation  across  the  EU  is  extremely  variable  and  it  is 
therefore difficult to bring the situation in all Member States into line. Much railway exists which 
is grossly under-utilised: some railway is extremely congested in some key parts. Very different 

72 

 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

actions  are  needed  to  produce  an  effective  railway  in  these  different  circumstances:  reducing 
inefficient route in some countries: removing bottlenecks in others. A blanket policy of doubling 
capacity does not address these different needs.  

Route 
km 

Pass km 

Route 

(m)   

Utilisation* 

EU 28 

220000 

428300 

5.3 

China 

103100 

1160500  30.8 

Japan 

27607 

404400 

40.1 

JR East 

7513 

125534 

45.8 

Tokyu 

105 

10711 

279.5 

Tokaido HS  553 

48873 

242.1 

UK 

15775 

53316 

9.3 

Germany 

33707 

77221 

6.3 

France 

29841 

84860 

7.8 

Italy 

17037 

50000 

8.0 

Bulgaria 

4023 

1700 

1.2 

Estonia 

1510 

300 

0.5 

Romania 

10770 

5000 

1.3 

*1,000 pass km/route km/day 

 Table 3 Railway utilisation  

(EU  data  from  EU  Transport  in  Figures  2016  excluding  tram  &  metro  Source:  EU  Transport 
pocket book 2016, and JR Tokai Annual report 2016) 

It  is  worth  reflecting  on  the  huge  variation  of  passenger  utilisation  of  railways  worldwide.  The 
figure  of  merit  we  choose  is  passenger  km/route  km/day,  a  parameter  well  known 
internationally.  For many years Japan has the country with most intense utilisation. Even  now 
the mode share of the railways is nearly 30%, much higher than the western European figure of 
around 6-9%. But even in Japan usage is varied: the Tokaido Shinkansen achieves 242, some 6 
times  the  average  utilisation,  similarly  Tokyu  Corporation  private  railway  has  a  multiple  of  7 
times the national average. The average across the EU 28 is just 13% of Japan. China is rapidly 
approaching  the  high  utilisation  of  Japan.  Looking  at  the  EU,  the  “big”  players  in  the  west 
achieve  only  20%  of  the  all  Japan  figure.  Some  of  newer  EU  members  have  tiny  route 
utilisation: in the case of Estonia only just over 1% of Japan’s utilisation. 

 
 
 
 
 
Pass km   Route 

Route 
km 

(m) 

Utilisation 

Japan 

Korea 

2765 

89170 

88.4 

880 

14885 

46.3 

Taiwan 

350 

9240 

72.3 

China 

22000 

254880 

31.7 

France 

2142 

52900 

67.7 

Germany 

3038 

24320 

21.9 

Spain 

Italy 

3100 

11840 

10.5 

1350 

12800 

26.0 

Table 4 High-speed route utilization (UIC 2014) 

First,  there  is  some  ambiguity  of  definition  of  route:  the  Far  Eastern  HS  trains  run  almost 
exclusively on dedicated track: France, Germany, Italy have some considerable length of route 
on conventional track, Spain almost exclusively on dedicated HS line.  The figure for Japan is for 
a  nearly  completely  developed  HS  system  covering  the  whole  county,  and  gives  an  average 
considerable  lower  than  the  first  built  Tokaido  line  of  the  previous  table.  As  less  frequented 
areas  of  the  country  have  been  reached  the  average  utilisation  has  dropped.  This  is  an  easily 
anticipated conclusion. Note that only France, of the Western countries with a reasonably well-
developed  system,  has  a  figure  approaching  Japan.  Spain,  with  the  largest  system  in  Europe, 
has 8 times lower than Japan.  

In the light of these figures, one of the key Targets (Objective) of S2R, that of doubling railway 
capacity,  may  merit  review.  If  it  were  to  be  cast  in  doubling  utilisation,  it  may  be  more 
appropriate.  Indeed,  the  White  Paper  on  Transport,  calls  for  triple  the  length  of  the  existing 
European  HS  network  by  2030.  Is  this  realistic?  Again,  from  the  White  Paper,  we  read  that 
coherence at the EU level is vital, but the railway situation across the EU is extremely variable, 
as is well illustrated by table 3 above. Much railway exists which is grossly under-utilised: some 
railway is extremely congested in some key parts. Very different actions are needed to produce 
an  effective  railway  in  these  different  circumstances:  reducing  inefficient  route  in  some 
countries:  removing  bottlenecks  in  others.  A  blanket  policy  of  doubling  capacity  does  not 
address these different needs.  

The competition, from the Far East, to European manufacturers, arises mainly though the huge 
economies of scale enjoyed by the Far East manufacturers supporting huge domestic markets. 
If  European  manufacturers  wish  to  defend  their  position,  they  need  a  clear  strategic  view  on 
how this might be achieved. By competing on cost, reliability, quality, or innovation?  

10.2 Longer-term development of rail and S2R 

Transport market development takes place against an increasing background of both short- and 
longer-term uncertainty with regard to technological, social and demographic factors. The TJUs 
in  general  seem  to  consider  the  externally  developed  scenario’s  (including  longer-term 
forecasts)  as  a  given  when  conducting  their  strategic  planning,  referring  to  objectives  and 
outputs of higher-level planning groups within the industry. While transport demand has indeed 
shown  longer-term  growth  in  the  last  half  century,  we  observe  that  major  actors  in  the 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

transport  industry  are  increasingly  considering  stagnation  or  even  decreases  of  transport 
demand.  

As  a  result,  it  is  worthwhile  to  more  closely  monitor  technological,  economic,  social  and 
demographic  evolutions.  Examples  include  Virtual  Reality,  Ageing  populations,  Re-  and  Near 
shoring  of  economic  activities,  etc.  as  only  some  of  major  disruptors  on  the  level  of  both 
passenger and cargo transport demand and the resulting needs for infrastructure, engines and 
vehicles,  and  traffic  management  systems.  Another  material  element  in  this  discussion  is  the 
potential  conflict  of  both  market  and  policy  objectives,  such  as  the  objective  regarding  strong 
growth  of  High  Speed  Rail  on  mid-distances  in  Europe  (potentially  at  the  detriment  of  air 
travel).  It  appears  that  a  more  systems-based  approach  is  required  to  fully  capture  these 
disruptors  and  challenge  the  TJUs  strategies  (under  the  form  of  master  plans  and  programs) 
against more extreme scenarios, to make JU programs and strategies more robust in the mid- 
to long term.  

The  opening  up  of  TJU  management  and  boards  to  external  directors/experts  bringing  in  this 
expertise  (even  from  a  more  global  perspective,  so  not  confined  to  the  EU),  including 
challenging  the  JU  management  on  the  strategy  formulation  and  evaluation,  is  therefore 
recommended.  This  instead  of  the  current,  more  ‘closed’  approach  applied  now  where  all  the 
TJUs  seem  to  be  enclosed  within  their  own  ecosystem  or  ‘silo’,  which  increases  the  risk  of 
groupthink  when  it  comes  to  risk  assessments  (one  respondent  of  the  TE  interview  used  the 
phrase “always the same people” to point out this risk and suggest it as an element to change 
in  this  particular  context).  Another  suggestion  would  be  to  develop  next  to  a  ‘Technology 
Evaluator’, a ‘Market Evaluator’ particularly looking at these  risks, including a more qualitative 
approach to market relevance, market risk and market acceptance, in particular when high-TRL 
research is conducted. 

In  conclusion  the  creation  of  the  JU  has  been  extremely  positive  in  many  respects  and  has 
helped to make significant strides in closing many gaps in previously fragmented rail research. 
It  has  also  provided  the  private  and  public  sectors  with  continuity  and  stability  in  where  rail 
should  prioritise  its  attentions.  Nonetheless  the  expert  group  feel  that  there  are  some 
immediate  actions  that  should  be  taken  to  improve  a  small  number  of  key  areas  that  are 
suboptimal within the term of this JU. It is also the experts recommendation to continue with a 
S2R–2 with a revised and expanded programme.   

 
 
 
 
11. ANNEXES 

Appendix 1 List of Interviews and meetings 

date 

Interview with 

location 

experts 

Minutes 

h.mn 

In CIRCA 

18/01  UNIFE management 

UNIFE Brussels 

19/01 

S2R management 

JU offices 

EF 

EF 

2.30  Meeting with UNIFE 20170118 

2 

Meeting  with  JU  management 
20170119 

02/02 

ERRAC chairman 

London, 
college 

Imperial 

EF/RS 

3 

Informal meeting 

06/02 

Lighthouse 
coordinators 

projects 

UNIFE Brussels 

EF/HeA 

3 

22/02  D. Cadet (Alstom) 

Phone interview 

EF 

28/02 

ERRAC chairman 

JU offices 

EF/HeA 

2 

2 

28/02  UNISIG general manager 

UNIFE 

EF/HeA 

1.30 

15/03 

SC member Nash 

Phone 

RS 

1 

Interview  IT2Rail  coordinator 
20170206 

Interview Rol2Rail coordinator 
20170206 

Interview  with  D.  Cadet 
20170222 

Interview 
Doherty 
A 
2017.02.28 V2.2 AD approved 

INterview  M.  Vanlieffereinge 
20170228_clean 

Minutes  interviews  with  SC 
members 

20/03 

SC member Iwanicki 

Huddersfield 

RS 

2.5 

Id° 

29/03  UNIFE 

UNIFE 

EF/HeA/RS 

2.30  Minutes  of  meeting  with 

29/03 

S2R 
group 

system 

integration 

JU offices 

EF/HeA/RS 

2 

29/03  Member  states  committee 

JU offices 

EF/HeA/RS 

2 

chairman 

30/03 

IP leaders 

JU offices 

EF/HeA/RS 

4 

UNIFE V4 EF H 

Participation  in  the  meeting 
as observers, no minutes 

Position  paper :  Shift2Rail  - 
comments 
and 
remarks_Miroslav Haltuf2 

meeting  with  IP  leaders  V2 
2017.03.30 

30/03 

IP3 leader 

id° 

id° 

position paper N. Allen, IP3 

30/03  DG RTD and DG Move 

DG Move 

EF/HeA/RS 

1.30 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

31/03  UIC-CER 

UIC Brussels 

EF/HeA/RS 

3 

Minutes meeting UIC CER 31-
03-17 

31/03  UITP 

UITP Brussels 

EF/HeA/RS 

1.30  meeting  with  UITP 

V2 

2017.03.30 

03/05  Mermec  France  SA,  R&D 

Phone interview 

HeA 

1 

Interview MERMEC 

director 

03/05 

Strukton, S2R contact 

JU offices 

03/05  Michael Cramer, MEP 

Brussels 

04/05 

TIGER Team, Palacin 

Phone 

04/05 

Scientific Committee 

Phone 

HeA 

HeA 

RAS 

RAS 

1 

1 

Interview Strukton 

Informal discussion 

0.5 

Informal discussion 

0.5 

Informal discussion 

French Bombardier 

04/05 

Scientific Committee 

Phone 

RAS 

0.5 

Informal discussion 

Brennon RSSB 

05/05 

ERA head of the ERTMS unit  Phone interview 

EF 

05/05 

Caroline Alméras - ECTRI 

Phone interview 

HeA 

05/05 

Alan McKinnon - TAG 

Phone interview 

HeA 

21/05   Final  interview  with  the  JU 

JU offices 

EF/RS 

management 

1 

1 

1 

2 

Interview 
2017.05.05 

Pio 

Guido 

Informal discussion 

Informal discussion 

Informal discussion 

21/05 

ERA  Executive  Director  and 
head  of  the  research  and 
strategy unit 

DG MOVE  

EF/RS 

3 

Informal discussion 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix  2  Distinguishing  features  of  research  and  development:  reliance  to 
railway research 

The view of Roderick Smith, but supported by the other experts. 

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." 

Wernher von Braun (1912-1977) 

This  figure  below  attempts  to  illustrate  the  main  stages  in  converting  fundamental  scientific 
knowledge into applicable technology. 

The  original  development  of  scientific  knowledge  is  often  carried  out  without  any  particular 
application in mind. As examples, early work on the laser could not have anticipated the myriad 
uses  to  which  lasers  are  now  put,  the  internet  was  not  invented  to  sell  tickets.  Much  of  this 
detached scientific work is carried out in universities. 

The ideas generated are sometimes, and often long after their original conception, subsequently 
taken  up  with  a  product  or  industrial  application  in  mind:  it  is  useful  to  call  this  stage 
technological  development.  Typically  this  stage  will  be  in  an  industrial  research  laboratory, 
tested in field operations, and after several feedback loops, codified into applications, which will 
be capable of everyday application. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

The above is, of course, a broad generalisation. The stages may overlap: in a rapidly developing 
high-tech  industry41  the  overlap  may  be  considerable.  Fundamental  work  may  be  undertaken 
even in the production unit. In general the more established and mature the industry, the less 
the  overlap  in  these  three  stages.  The  railway  is  a  mature  industry  that  operates  today  after 
200  years  of  incremental  improvement  with  the  occasional  introduction  of  step  change.  Very 
little  fundamental  research  has  been  carried  out  by  or  for  the  railway  industry.  In  general  it 
adopts  and  develops  ideas  from  outside.  Only  the  areas  that  are  unique  to  the  railway,  the 
interfaces  between  wheel  and  rail,  current  collector  and  power-line,  train  and  control  system, 
can be said to have generated fundamental scientific research for or in the industry. Everything 
else is a product of the development process over long time periods. 

The spectrum of research and development can be considered in the context of short and long 
term, tactical and strategic. The matrix below is an attempt to illustrate the broad trends: 

Long term strategic research (including speculative projects), might be considered to occupy the 
top  right  hand  box  of  the  spectrum  matrix  of  research  and  development.  Generalising,  as  the 
work  becomes  more  tactical  and  sorter  term,  in  is  properly  described  as  development, 
occupying the bottom left hand box. The terms applied and fundamental might also describe the 
spectrum from development to research. Long-term tactical research is hard to envisage and is 
probably  an  oxymoron,  thus  the  top left  hand  box  is  not  populated.  However,  it  is  possible  to 
conceive  of  short-term  work  that  is  both  tactical  and  strategic.  We  have  placed  this  in  the 
middle  of  the  spectrum:  short-term  strategy  can  hardly  occupy  the  extremes  of  fundamental 
research.  On  the  other  hand,  short-term  tactical  work  may  be  useful.  But  it  clearly  lies  within 
the  development  end  of  the  spectrum.  Research  is  properly  defined  by  an  enquiring, 
experimental  approach  with  uncertain  tangible  outcomes,  other  than  the  important  one  of 
people  development.  Development  can  be  defined  by  milestones  to  anticipated  outputs:  only 
rarely  does  it  concern  itself  with  people  training.  Of  course,  practically,  we  frequently  need  to 
operate  somewhere  between  these  extremes.  To  a  large  degree  economic  pressures  have 
tended  to  favour  shorter-term  development  projects  with  the  need  to  identify  tangible 
milestones at the proposal stage, and in the final review stage, by making a quality judgement 
on  “usefulness”  as  the  readiness  for  immediate  take  up  or  deployment  by  industry.  Thus  the 
judgement of the utility of the project has to an extent become more important than the quality 
of the researcher(s) submitting the proposal or the quality of the scientific relevance. 

41  

In  the  railway  domain,  the  term  industry  is  sometimes  used  to  mean  the  just  the  manufacturing  segment.  In  the 
context above it is used to mean the whole sector. 

 
 
 
                                                
In  an  industry  such  as  the  railways,  the  research  department  acts  as  the  handshake  between 
the fundamental science and the application. Its close links with the rail industry are vital to its 
success,  as  are  the  concentrations  of  minds  in  one  location  and  the  interchange  of  personnel 
between the research centre and the industry. It could be argued that this is a primary reason 
for  retaining  a  research  function.  In  many  of  the  relatively  recently  privatised  (liberalised?) 
national  industries,  the  research  function  has  been  almost  entirely  dropped,  presuming  that  if 
research is needed it can be bought out from external consultants. For example, the list of the 
national  laboratories  in  the  UK  which  have  closed  includes  the  Central  Electricity  Generating 
Board  CEGB,  British  Gas42,  British  Rail,  the  Atomic  Energy  Authority,  National  Engineering 
Laboratory, Royal Aircraft Establishment, and so on. The situation across most of Europe is very 
similar, with in the particular case of the rail industry, an overall decrease, if not disappearance 
of research functions in the national operating companies. This decrease is far from having been 
fully compensated by research performed  within  the railway manufacturing industry, given the 
narrow operating margins. 

This  short  sighted,  short  term,  economically  driven  policy  has  led  to  a  weakening  of  the 
expertise,  lack  of  opportunities  for  science  and  technology  graduates,  reduction  in  interest  in 
studying for engineering PhDs and, directly for the industries concerned, a loss of knowledge of 
what  is  happening  in  a  fundamental  way  on  the  world  stage,  a  loss  of  informed  buyer 
knowledge and a general decline in European industrial know-how.  

Increasingly this has led to a loss of “internal” expertise. The aftermath of the Hatfield accident 
of 2000 in the UK, an accident caused by a broken rail, is a salutary case study for the railway 
industry. In the 1960’s, British Rail opened a national research centre in Derby. By the 1970’s 
these  laboratories  had  developed  a  world-class  reputation  and  carried  out  ground  braking 
research  into  topics  such  as  vehicle  dynamics,  wheel/rail  interactions  and  solid-state 
interlocking  signalling  systems.  Papers  were  published  in  international  journals,  presentations 
were  made  at  international  conferences,  the  reputation  of  British  railway  know-how  had  a 
reputation  second  to  none.  But  all  this  was  closed  on  privatisation  of  the  industry  and  after 
Hatfield no immediate internal technical was available to the infrastructure managers, Railtrack. 
Expensive  external  experts  were  contracted:  consultants  who  had  a  vested  interest  in  milking 
the  system  for  as  long  as  possible  for  huge  fees.  Much  of  the  rail  network  was  subjected  to 
speed restriction,  which caused  huge difficulties and complete loss of the timetable for several 
weeks  and  left  a  long  difficult  aftermath,  which  took  several  years  to  overcome.  None  of  this 
would  have  been  necessary  had  the  expertise  of  an  internal  research  team  been  available  to 
Railtrack and the cost of maintaining this expertise would have been hugely less than that of the 
advice brought in after the accident. 

Discussions with financial people, who in many cases manage industry, bring no comfort to the 
case  for  strengthening  industry  based  research  teams.  The  assumption  is  that  the  research 
team  exists  to  produce  daily  “inventions”  which  improve  the  bottom  line.  But  of  course, 
research  has  a  wider  role.  It  provides  information  on  the  activities  of  similar  organisations 
worldwide,  it  provides  a  conduit  for  seeking  opportunistic  application  of  developments 
elsewhere, it provides an informed  buying  capability for the host company and, importantly, it 
provides in-house technical opinion when things go wrong. 

The purpose of this note is to promote debate about the possible ways of both continuing and 
funding  railway  research  and  development.  It  has  become  clear  that  a  fragmented  privatised 
railway  has  not  been  given  sufficient  or  indeed  appropriate  research  support  by  its  suppliers, 
who  in  many  cases  are  too  small,  but  are  also  unable  to  take  a  system  wide  view  of  the 
problems  of  the  railway43.  Much  of  the  work  they  do  is  short-term  development,  aimed  at 

42    The author’s career benefited from the presence of the national research laboratories. He was a Gas Council Research 
Scholar  for  a  PhD  at  Cambridge,  he  spent  the  first  6  months  in  the  CEGB  Berkeley  Nuclear  Laboratory  and  over  the 
next decades until their demise had close and fruitful contacts with all the laboratories in this list. 

43   That this is a Europe wide phenomenon is evidenced by the paucity of technical papers related to fundamental railway 
science  published  in  leading  journals  and  presented  at  major  international  conferences.  That  many  such  quality 
publications  are  emanating  from  the  Far  East  underlines  the  challenges  to  which  European  railway  research  is 

80 

 
 
                                                
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

improving the  balance  sheet  tomorrow: and this is  a natural response  of private industry with 
impatient shareholders to satisfy.  

It is, of course, a major purpose of publicly funded research programmes to fill this gap.  It is 
therefore  important  that  such  programmes  are  able  to  provide  a  system  wide  view  of  the 
industry  to  which  they  are  aimed.  It  is  also  important  that  the  output  of  technically  trained 
people  is  recognised  as  a  potentially  valuable  output.  It  is  important  that  the  IP  generated  is 
public  property  and  that  the  research  or  development  advances  paid  for  by  public  funds  are 
reported and recorded in open access quality journals and that this valuable part of the output 
is recognised as a achievement or kpi. 

Whilst  it  is  recognised  that  development  work  may  well  be  the  property  of  a  company 
sponsoring the work, then for this reason it may be inappropriate for such work to form part of 
publicly funded research and development.  

Finally, the beneficial concentration effect grouping researchers to form the critical mass, which 
is so important for research interactions, might be considered.  Although integration of Europe is 
to some extent served by assembling teams of researchers to work remotely from each other, 
might it not be even better and more efficient served to assemble teams under one roof, or at 
least  to  create  the  appropriate  organisation  for  permanent  coordination  between  existing 
establishments,  the  role  of  which  would  be  augmented  and  widened.  The  current  buzzword 
innovation might well be better served by a research centre (or centres) having the expertise to 
scan  the  literature  and  search  the  outside  world  for  emerging  technical  breakthroughs,  which 
can be adopted and adapted for the railway industries’ needs.  

There  is  a  excellent  example  in  Japan  where  the  research  centre  of  the  Japanese  National 
Railway was retained on the privatisation of the system44 and funded partly by a levy on all rail 
tickets sold for research  programme and partly  by  contacts with various players in the railway 
system to fund what is largely development work. This national centre has flourished in the 25 
years  since  privatisation  and  development  a  world  reputation  for  quality.  It  coexists  with 
research  centres  developed  by  the  players in  the  railway  who  wish  to  conduct  their own  R&D, 
and the IP generated. 

exposed. Both SNCF and DB have retained research capability. The the case of DB its website states  DB Group does 
not  conduct  its  own  research  and  development  in  the  strict  sense.  However,  the  division  initiates  end-user-oriented 
development based on technical  competence and operator experience..  Neither  company  would claim to conduct the 
comprehensive fundamental research such as that conducted by RTRI. 

44   The Railway Technical Research Institute  in Tokyo  is probably the largest such institute in the world. It certainly has 

the best reputation, although China is rapidly catching up. http://www.rtri.or.jp/eng/ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                              
 
Annex  3.  Profiles  of  the  respondents  to  the  internet  survey  organised  by  the 
Expert Group 

What best describes your organisation’s 
activities, please select one.  

OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

16,7% 

NONE OF THESE - PLEASE MARK IN COMMENTS BOX 

NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION/ CIVIL SOCIETY … 

0,0% 

0,0% 

REPRESENTATIVE PROFESSIONAL BODY OR TRADE … 

RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

11,9% 

14,3% 

NATIONAL AGENCY / INSTITUTION 

7,1% 

PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANISATION 

11,9% 

STATE OWNED ORGANISATION 

38,1% 

0,0%

10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0%

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

 (Web accessed 25 June 2017) 

4th Railway Package of 2016 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/packages/2013_en 

2009/561/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 2009 amending Decision 2006/679/EC as regards 
the  implementation  of  the  technical  specification  for  interoperability  relating  to  the  control-
command  and  signalling  subsystem  of  the  trans-European  conventional  rail  system 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e6aea3fe-be55-4106-a217-
ef51e07a4a5c/language-enCleanSky2, http://www.cleansky.eu/ 

Directive  2012/34/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  council  of  21  November  2012 
establishing a single European railway area 

Directive  2008/57/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  June  2008  on  the 
interoperability of the rail system within the Community  

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
economic  and  social  committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  regions:  For  a  European  industrial 
renaissance (COM/2014/014 final) 

EU  Transport  in  Figures  2016  Statistical  Pocketbook  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-
fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2016_en 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/scoreboard_en 

https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3-1-English-Airport-Operators-Sector-
Supplement.pdf 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, June 2017 

Horizon 2020 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/ 

Lighthouse projects: 

http://www.in2rail.eu/ Innovative Intelligent Rail 

http://www.it2rail.eu/  Information Technologies for Shift2Rail 

http://www.roll2rail.eu/ Key Technologies & Innovation for rail vehicles 

http://smartrail-project.eu/ SMART-RAIL Smart Supply Chain Oriented Rail Freight Services 

Regulation (EU) 2016/796 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the 
European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004  

Single  European  Sky  ATM  Research 
https://www.sesarju.eu/ 

JU,  High  Performing  Aviation 

for  Europe, 

Shift2Rail Strategic Master Plan, Version 1.0, EU March 2015 

S2R Annual Activity Report 2016 (First Draft) March 2017 

White  Paper  on  Transport:  Roadmap  to  a  Single  European  Transport  Area  -  Towards  a 
2011 
competitive 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/2011_white_paper_en 

transport 

resource 

efficient 

system, 

and 

EU 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
M
I
-
0
2
-
1
7
-
7
2
5
-
E
N
-
N

doi: 10.2832/129413